> The idea that a foreign, adversarial government would have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry at-scale is obviously not consistent with the societal good (or the "common defense", for that matter), so is outside of the First Amendment's scope/intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamont_v._Postmaster_General

In this case, a U.S. citizen sued, not the Chinese government.

Again, foreign governments don't have a Constitutional right to propagandize our citizenry.

You seem oddly enthusiastic about giving your government the right to violate freedom of speech for entities you do not like, thus removing a platform used both as a platform for speech and for commerce, for 150 million Americans. It totally makes sense to violate the First Amendment over unproven and hypothetical fears of FYP algorithm misuse. Enjoy your slippery slope :)

Feel free to re-read my comments and address my actual statement, pointing out that your initial assertion is wrong. That, versus changing the subject.

>Enjoy your slippery slope

There's certainly a slippery slope here—and a strawman, but they ain't mine.

You just refuse to accept that entities that you do not like also have Freedom of Speech rights. You continue to believe that Freedom of Speech is a positive right to people, rather than a negative right against the government. You are therefore perfectly fine with preemptively suppressing the speech (and commerce) for over a hundred million American citizens, because you perceive a threat from the FYP algorithm, because you do not value the Freedom of Speech rights of entities you do not like. That is a slippery slope. If you don't want to recognise that either, that's your prerogative.

At this point, why even have a negative-right Freedom of Speech if you're just going to treat it like a positive right anyway? Ridiculous.

No need to keep repeating yourself. SCOTUS has already ruled:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-tiktok-ban/

So, feel free to take it up with them.

This is my last reply. Thanks for the chat. Take care.

Yup, the composition of the Court has changed, thus its stance has changed. But if you choose to defer any and all thought to this Court, who consistently give the government wide latitude to do whatever it wants so long as it invokes the magic words "national security", that's your prerogative. It's a sad way to live though.