If that were the case, then why was ByteDance given the option to divest?

Because the drafters knew they wouldn't/couldn't/aren't allowed to/would only be able to do so to someone more under the thumb of the US government?

The actual purpose of a law or system is the actual outcome of it and not what it's dressed up to say its purpose is. A law that says "we don't allow mosques unless they're owned by people not descended from countries on a terrorism watch list" is still an infringement of the freedom of religion. We don't have to pretend there's good faith here.

> Because the drafters knew they wouldn't/couldn't/aren't allowed to/would only be able to do so to someone more under the thumb of the US government?

This is at best vacuously true. Since China is the most powerful adversary of the US, you'd say that literally anyone else is more under the thumb of the US government than they are.

Because if they were owned by an American company it’s much less likely they’d allow that content to go viral.

The law didn't require the new owner to be in America. Anywhere other than Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia would have been allowed.

How is that incompatible? Who would control it