Sigh. This article has some legitimate criticism of the bill, such as the jingo-ism animating it and the first amendment implications of banning TikTok.

Alongside that, though, is the same sky-is-falling rhetoric. It's justified by linking another article which uses as its source... not joking... "Internet Rumors". Maybe just ask a lawyer before saying what the bill does or doesn't do?

Possibly one from the EFF, for example? They'd even be on your side in opposing the bill.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/government-hasnt-justified-tiktok-ban

Oh, I somehow missed that part in the article. Thanks for pointing it out.

EDIT: Actually, just reread and I can't find that information in the page. Can you point it out to me, or is there another outside source for it?

EDIT 2: Found a source. Thanks for the info, I'll update my summary.

Title and article are kinda word salad. Simple English summary:

Hackers convinced users to install copies of ChatGPT extensions that had been infected with malware. This article covers how the hackers promoted the extensions, the data that they stole, and where that data went to.