Because the people 250 years ago could not have imagined the problems that we'd have invented for ourselves in these days. It was always meant to be a living document with a process of adding and changing amendments. And in between that time the the way people interact has grown more complex. If you took those same intelligent men and dropped them into today, the Amendments would look different.

If only they made a process to change it…

Good luck amending the constitution these days. We can't even pass an amendment that says that women have the same rights as men.

An amendment process that in practice is impossible to exercise is just as good as having no amendment process at all.

That’s not an excuse for circumventing it, obviously.

> The government can fine American companies for carrying certain content

No, and no one is saying they can. The law says American companies can't do business with a certain foreign-owned company.

It is beyond settled in law that this is something that the US government can do.

It’s not a certain company, it’s a whole class of them (partially defined by POTUS’ whims)

Sure, the government can do that, and when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information, it introduces First Amendment questions that must be addressed.

“The government says CNN can’t post stories from BBC” isn’t immediately resolved by “it’s a foreign company.”

> when doing so infringes on Americans’ speech or access to information

But this doesn't do that. Everything that Americans could post or watch on TikTok, they're still allowed to post or watch anywhere else.

Just like everything that a reader might find in NYTimes, they could also find on Fox News!

It sounds like you're saying that there's some content on TikTok that Instagram Reels/YouTube Shorts/etc. won't allow on their platforms. Is that correct? If so, can you give an example?

Since when is that the test?

Is the government allowed to shut down Harvard because the same classes can be taken at ASU?

Because it's not the content but rather the company behind it. The exact same .apk would be allowed if ByteDance divested.