Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far it’s only been communist Chinese companies that have had to go through this (to my knowledge) in recent times. Tit for tat and al that. Maybe if China let Facebook, Twitter, etc operate then we wouldn’t have this problem.
There is no such thing as tit for a tat in a civilisation with rule of law. Either USA had privacy laws that forbid Tik Tok from participating in USA marketplace or USA doesn’t have rule of law and operates under some form of dictatorship.
The law underlying this deal isn't a privacy law but a national security law that allows the President to force the sale of foreign-owned assets that pose a security risk. It's mainly intended to deal with war, near/imminent war, and quasiwar situations where the assets are active tools of opposing belligerent, and, even if this is technically within the letter of the law (about which there has been serious questions raised), it's seems clearly outside of the intended application and to be very likely premised on a bad-faith determination that is an abuse of power. But the Republicans in the Senate have already signalled a lack of willingness to hold the President to account for any abuse of power no matter how flagrant, so everything that isn't forcibly constrained by something other than the risk of impeachment is, de facto, licensed until the Senate and/or President are changed.