I copied my response from Porta John:
"Notice it also specifically designates apps. Think ballistic apps, crypto payment apps (so you have to use CBDCs), Bible or other religious apps (hate speech), etc. The power would rest solely with the Executive branch. How any citizen thinks this centralization of power and negation of the First Amendment is a good idea is beyond me."
Read that again slowly: the EXECUTIVE BRANCH will decide what apps you can have, there is no provision for review or reversal of the Executive Branch decision. It is a full violation of the First Amendment. What makes anyone think that this is really about Tik Tok? If it was there wouldn't be this language in there. On the contrary it would have mentioned Tik Tok solely, but it doesn't; rather it flings the door open to censorship of websites (like this one), apps and other avenues of information that are deemed unsatisfactory. This is 1984 level stuff.
Here is Rand Paul's comments:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, spoke on the Senate floor to protect Americans’ First Amendment rights and oppose a Senate bill that would ban TikTok. Dr. Paul's objection comes from a...
www.paul.senate.gov
If it was just about banning Tik Tok, I might be for it, but this reaches FAR beyond that. Very very far.