A forced divestiture is a very different thing than a ban. The divestiture requirements are also very open. A new owner headquartered in all but a very short list of countries labelled as adversarial would satisfy it.
Tiktok has stated that they would not divest, but rather pull out of the market. Since they are facing the option of divest or get banned, they are effectively being banned
So what happens when tiktok doesn't get sold or doesn't close? Do app stores keep offering it? Does the website remain accessible? Do people keep going to work at the office?
This is only in the case of someone with a poor grasp of the English language.
Food processors that refuse to stop selling rancid meat aren't "banned". They're shut down! The only thing that's banned is the selling of rancid meat, not the specific companies.
Very poor analogy. Once the government has arrested all the employees, bombed all the offices, seized any assets it can, but people still use the app or visit the website then what follows?
It's the same thing as banning. It's banning via a different method. It's more of a ban than china 'banning' US social media for refusing to follow chinese laws within their own country.
Flagging this for the very misleading headline.