No, because they're not banning TikTok, nor is eminent domain anything like arson.
The only similarity between condemnation and arson is that you don't get to live in the house anymore. If your house is condemned and you get fair market value for it, you can buy a new house with it. If your house is burned to the ground, you have nothing.
Similarly, if ByteDance sells TikTok to someone else, TikTok can be to its users exactly how it has been all along. They've simply chosen not to, at least not yet. And it's in their best interest to characterize it as a ban to win hearts and minds, even though that characterization of "banning" is something they're choosing to do to themselves by shutting it down instead of selling.
The only similarity between condemnation and arson is that you don't get to live in the house anymore. If your house is condemned and you get fair market value for it, you can buy a new house with it. If your house is burned to the ground, you have nothing.
Similarly, if ByteDance sells TikTok to someone else, TikTok can be to its users exactly how it has been all along. They've simply chosen not to, at least not yet. And it's in their best interest to characterize it as a ban to win hearts and minds, even though that characterization of "banning" is something they're choosing to do to themselves by shutting it down instead of selling.