Europe

I agree get rid of it (along with all social media) but TikTok in Europe isn’t owned by the US. That’s still the version owned by China/Bytedance

The US owned version was spun off just for the US market.

Agree but alternatives are needed

I'd be curious to hear their explanation as to why the Tiktok "addictive" system of switching from one video to the other is more addictive than YT shorts who does the same(, or Instagram reels, switching videos on 𝕏 or Facebook, Vine back then, ...).
For now, their arguments are : infinite scroll and push notifications(, present on every social media), autoplay, recommandations, ...

This includes features such as infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and its highly personalised recommender system.

Tiktok is being accused of using the same system as other social platforms, sure we believe that our arguments are more coherent, or everyone knows that they're just lazy excuses, and nobody cares.
Yeah, it's probably that we gave up on democracy, and nobody with power cares about Tiktok.

Also, our french president keeps repeating over and over the lie that using Tiktok leads you to salafist content after 3-4 videos, and no-one stops him.
I know for a fact that it's false since almost half of my use of Tiktok was for islamist content(, ~50-100h over ~3 years), and i never once met salafist content(, there was Shahid Bolsen that was fiercely anti-imperialist, and he was pro-Sahel countries, that's the worst i found, but i suppose that the trick is that extremism is relative ; i believe that the Quran should be interpreted in its historical context and show(ed) a path, but most literalists will be frowned upon by 'most atheists'/'any islamophobes').
I do recognize that anti-imperialist[1], communist, and islamist content appears more often on Tiktok than YT Shorts, but i.m.o. it's because Tiktok doesn't censor as much as YT Shorts, and not because it promotes such content.
They probably already interfered in Google results, and intend to interfere in l.l.m. results as well, masks off right ?

He also said a few times that the chinese Tiktok is mostly focused on educative content while our Tiktok is focused on entertainment, but just hope that nobody will verify to see that there is everything on both platforms and it depends on the user choices.
It's just like when they're claiming that social media use will modify the shape of our brain. Now, they claim that violent games may make people violent(, despite the experiment of the last 30 years, it's violent people that choose violent games, boomers). That's quite certainly a throwaway issue put forward in order to make a concession later though.
I spent a lot of time as a teenager on loup.org and it helped in improving my writing&social skills, most americans had so many great experiences with Club Penguin that it still exists today, even if some pedophiles were indeed there, but let's not throw the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, we just use this pretext as an excuse to regulate our internet.

They can just say what they want unchallenged, i'd like to see once a debate with someone knowledgeable really disagreeing with him.
And when they do have a contradictory debate, then they'll just end up disagreeing after exchanging arguments for an hour(, sometimes less). Lock them together in a room for 1-2 days until they agree with each other. I'd like to see a debate ending with "can i invite you to discuss it further this evening at a table ?", they have five years between each election and won't spend most of their time talking with each other.
Or, if they're truly so busy, then force them to exchange public letters(, with the help of assistants), so that they can have the time to think more deeply about 'their own'&'the opposite' arguments.
It seems that they'll instead decide something, advance a few valid arguments(, without any counter-arguments), and we just roll with it. At least, i don't see a contradictory debate(, deputies aren't really debating, and i don't see how they could, so each one is just making a speech, and often have voting instructions by their party), which would be useless since we're not deciding anyway, so continue like that...

[1] : I never said that it doesn't mean being anti-France : one could have been against royalism when France was a kingdom, or slavery when it was allowed, would it have been being anti-France ? Now, some people are against imperialism/hegemony. There are (+) and (-) to most things, and that includes France who has, e.g., an interesting past.
By definition, you can't evolve without diversity, both external as a species and internal as a (commune/)country(/federation).