Besides, even if they weren't, I can be worried that I broke my leg and that my house is on fire.
Why fight that battle when we can't even secure devices with sensitive data?
The argument sounds like a non sequitur: because we cannot defend against all threats, we should not defend against any threat.
We can have different priorities for what is more impactful, easier to secure, and less restricting to fundamental freedoms without resorting to black and white thinking.
Cybersecurity is failing across the board causing damage worth 1000x of what it would cost to secure these systems.
Hostile powers will exploit any vulnerability they can find. In democracies, ordinary citizens are a target. In Romania an election was annulled, and TikTok specifically named in the investigation: https://apnews.com/article/romania-election-president-george...
Therefore I think we should not underestimate this threat. I admit that doing this in a way that preserves fundamental freedoms is not easy, and I don't claim to have the answer. Consider freedom of movement: few people seriously deny the need for passport checks on international borders.
That's it. It isn't regulation of speech, it's regulation of commerce, which is entirely within the rights of the US Congress to regulate.