Love and respect, Sir Odell, but not correct.

Looking at the bill, it's entirely limited to forced divestiture of a specific social media video app owned by a firm in a state deemed to be a "foreign adversary," which is strictly defined in US code: North Korea, Iran, China, Cuba, Russia, and Venezuela.

There is no legal way to apply this to any other technology, company, or entity. It's actually a good thing if we care about getting people off CCP spyware.

I wrote about it here:

https://consumerchoicecenter.org/the-best-answer-to-tiktok-is-a-forced-divestiture/

As for Section 230, the cases before the Supreme Court this term are appeals where tech firms won and strengthened Section 230, and most legal observers say they have no chance. I'm inclined to agree. The only way to undo Section 230 is by Congress. In case that happens, there would be plenty of good privacy and tech advocates battling against that.

As for free speech and nostr, there are a lot of lessons and nostr is well placed as a decentralized protocol. Very bullish.

I just wouldn't take the arguments of the TikTok lawyers too seriously, since CCP want to expand their social credit score system. Maybe that's why they got their military to hack everyone's credit scores in the US:

https://thespectator.com/topic/chinese-communist-party-credit-history-equifax/ 

 http://oss.yael.at/tik-tok.mp4 

 Thank you for this comment.  I can't abide loosing section 230.  I do think banning tictok is not a good thing, and would eventually threaten somehow section 230, but, I feel better reading your response here.  Without 230, game over for my nostr business, protec at all cost. 🌱🌴🌽🐻‍❄️ 

 agree! thankfully the bill is just a forced divestiture. Same thing was applied to GRINDR when we found out the CCP was accessing people's sexual histories, HIV status, etc.

The difference there was that it was ordered by CFIUS than an act of Congress.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/6/21168079/grindr-sold-chinese-owner-us-cfius-security-concerns-kunlun-lgbtq