Some believe that the TikTok bill is an attack on Free Speech. Vivek Ramaswamy is one of those people. Rather than banning the app, he suggests we end “all forced data transfers to the CCP, regardless of ownership.”

To be clear, he does believe there is a case to be made in regards to banning addictive social media for kids under the age of 16, and has been vocal about that for years. This would include TikTok.

"Ban the bad behavior, not the individual actor or the individual company because that sets a terrible precedent,” Ramaswamy said. “That is a formula for abuse.”

He listed three primary problems of addictive algorithmic social media. That includes addictive tendencies in kids, forced data transfers to the CCP, and persuasion control.

"I would argue that this could get bipartisan support because of the specificity," Crowder said. "It is more specific than some of the Left's legislation of hate speech or misinformation."

However, Ramaswamy claims it is a "myth that Chinese ownership of the company is the only source of leverage China has to decide how state data is transferred to the behavior of countries and that we have far greater evidence of US companies that do business in China and hand over data to the CCP. “

"The idea that now we are just going to change the ownership of this one company, massively expand President Biden's authority to determine what platforms do or does not count as being controlled by foreign advisory to be able to shut it down is a massive civil libertarian risk without any justice to address the concern of Chinese leverage of the United States,” Ramaswamy said.

In other words, if the problem is transferring data to the CCP, then transferring ownership has not much of anything to do with that.

"I completely agree with the sentiment," Crowder said. "I think you are going to have a very hard time saying that this bill is too broad and then getting any kind of traction that would undue influence and data transfer to a foreign entity at any time. If that cannot happen then something more broad has no chance."

Ramaswamy states that the bill is too broad in the authority it gives to the president and that it is specifically designed to exclude the US companies that lobby for it.

"Ownership is not the only thing that matters," Ramaswamy said. "The specificity that is designed to exclude US companies that lobby for it will also render this ineffective."