In context, you're both wrong. You're correct that § 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) explicitly name Bytedance and TikTok [1], so it is not up to presidential discretion to add more apps, but § 2(G)(3)(B)(ii) indicates that it is within the president's discretion to not enforce.

There are some paperwork qualifiers that for certain have not been met (the not-yet president almost certainly could not have briefed Congress as president 30 days prior) -- but they seem trivial to satisfy, and it would be pointless to initiate enforcement actions for an event nobody intends to follow through on

§ 2(G)(3) A/B seem more like OR conditions to me, not AND. I don't think Bytedance can get out of it by the president saying they're not a threat.

[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... Ctrl+F "(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION"

Maybe I'm in over my head, but that's how I interpreted it too. It's annoying how every news source and even Wikipedia doesn't make it clear what this law does.

I'd just recommend reading the full bill. It's not that hard to understand and it's fairly short. I used a GPT to parse sections which seemed a bit complicated

> but § 2(G)(3)(B)(ii) indicates that it is within the president's discretion to not enforce

Wrong.

That § lets the President designate other entities. That’s why we wrote “any of” at the top—Bytedance, TikTok or any of the things the President may designate.

Yep, that being said I'm not mad at ignoring this part.

Of all the shittyness of this bill, least of which giving the president pretty much unchecked power to ban foreign social media, the fact that it named a specific entity is to me just bad form. Law shouldn't ever include "fuck you in particular" even if the effect of the law when applied will be that.

I am actually surprised that it was not deemed unconstitutional on this basis alone

What is the constitutional provision that covers this?