That's true and that's actually something the courts consider. The standard is unreasonable burden. So it's not necessarily anything that makes speech harder, but if it does make speech unreasonably burdensome then it would run afoul of the first amendment.

So if the alternative places where such speech could be hosted were extremely limited, expensive or very difficult to use then the law banning a platform could create an unreasonable burden.

Suggesting that a shuttering of TikTok represents any impediment to your First Amendment rights — even if no comparable alternative existed — is to misunderstand what was promised by the Constitution.

Of course, plenty of comparable alternatives do exist.

It would be harder for me to learn piano if my teacher was convicted of murder.

For the sake of the one downvote, please allow me to complete the implied dialogue tree:

>>>> It would be harder for me to learn piano if my teacher was convicted of murder.

>>> Nonsense. You can easily find another piano teacher.

>> Right, just like people who use TikTok can easily find another short form video platform.

> That's a terrible analogy.

Nonsense. If TikTok was convicted and shut down because of rampant financial fraud, your First Amendment rights would be similarly unaffected.

TikTok was told to close because they refused to bring their corporate ownership in line with requirements set out in US Code passed by Congress. The content of any video was never at issue.

This make no sense, at all, in any context. Law enforcement, security, philosophy, competition, politics. None of it.

Correct, but requiring American content creators and consumers to move to a different platform (when those platforms are already large, have huge reach, and have low switching costs) would likely not meet the bar for an unreasonable burden. I don't think the courts would strike down this law on first amendment grounds.