The RESTRICT act says absolutely nothing about VPNs & in no way criminalizes them.

It in no way criminalizes accessing a "banned app", and there would be absolutely no reason you would need a VPN to access a banned app anyway. Think about it. If tiktok is banned, all this means is that it gets booted from the Apple store and Google Play. Tiktok itself can just move its servers out of US jurisdiction and continue operating. The US, unlike China, does not possess a "great firewall" and has no capability to ban foreign websites. So Americans could keep using tiktok all they wanted without consequences, they'd just have to "side load" it onto their phones. Absolutely no part of this process requires a VPN.

If the law was interpreted to criminalize any part of the above, it would be ruled unconstitutional regardless. Listen. Virtual child porn was deemed constitutionally protected by the Supreme Court, ok? If you can't go to jail for loli hentai & virtual cp, you're not going to get busted for having tiktok on your phone.

I wonder how much of this huge surge against the RESTRICT act was fomented by CCP propaganda dollars before it caught on more widely.

RESTRICT does have some broad weasel language because it is drafted by people who came up as prosecutors, and prosecutors always want laws to be stupidly vague and overbroad since it makes it easier to prosecute people and gives them more discretionary power. I do think some of this language should be changed to make it more narrow and clear cut or else there is going to be a lot of fighting in the courts over interpretation.

However, the things being said about RESTRICT are just flatly wrong. Take it from someone who actually has the expertise to read statutes.