The ruling suggests that a shell corp might not be quite enough, even though TikTok as a US operating entity is sufficient.

> The Government suggests that because TikTok is wholly owned by ByteDance, a foreign company, it has no First Amendment rights. Cf. Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 591 U.S. 430, 436 (2020) (explaining that “foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights”). TikTok, Inc., however, is a domestic entity operating domestically. See NetChoice, 144 S. Ct. at 2410 (Barrett, J., concurring) (identifying potential “complexi- ties” for First Amendment analysis posed by the “corporate structure and ownership of some platforms”). The Government does not dispute facts suggesting at least some of the regulated speech involves TikTok’s U.S. entities. See TikTok App. 811– 12, 817–18 (explaining that promoted videos are “reviewed by a U.S.-based reviewer,” that an executive employed by a U.S. entity approves the guidelines for content moderation, and that the recommendation engine “is customized for TikTok’s vari- ous global markets” and “subject to special vetting in the United States”).

> Nor does the Government argue we should “pierce the corporate veil” or “invoke any other relevant exception” to the fundamental principle of corporate separateness. Agency for Int’l Dev., 591 U.S. at 435–36. We are sensitive to the risk of a foreign adversary exploiting corporate form to take advantage of legal protections in the United States. Indeed, the Government presented evidence to suggest the PRC intention- ally attempts to do just that. See, e.g., Gov’t App. 33–35 (describing the PRC’s hybrid commercial threat and its exploitation of U.S. legal protections for hacking operations). Under these circumstances, however, we conclude that the TikTok-specific provisions of the Act trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

Shell corps would have to register as foreign agents, and be surveilled and regulated as such. In the United States, and in most countries around the world, the speech and spending power of such agents is carefully monitored and curtailed.

Any social network should be assumed to be an agent of the government in which it operates from. Facebook, for instance, has a special relationship with the Pentagon, VKontakte with the Kremlin, TikTok with Beijing, etc.

If a foreign rabble-rouser, seeking to disrupt our harmonious society can be banned from entry into the country, why should their ideas be let in through a social network?

> why should their ideas be let in through a social network?

Who would decide if they are a rabble-rouser or are seeking to disrupt a country?

Let’s imagine a government where officials believe vaccines are bad for their population.

Then, under their state monitored and filtered social media, they see some rabble rousers from Norway trying to encourage people to be pro-vax.

What does that government do?

They make a virtual “wall” to prevent unauthorized ideas into the country.

Its kind of the opposite of a good idea.