This isn’t anything with the force of law though, so saying it would “give government the power to decide what constitutes misinformation” is misleading. Government communicating important information about public health and national security issues is part of their job. The current ruling if let to stand essentially places a gag order on the US government from communicating important information to any private organization.
This is just agencies sending information to social media networks to help them make decisions. It’s still up to the social media networks to decide. If you dig into the case, you’ll see the government was even totally ignored in two thirds of cases. Luckily it appears the supreme court is likely to overturn the prior order based on their comments today, and allow the US government to communicate again.
If in the future there was an attempt to make an actual law to give the government a power to regulate misinformation, it would have to be extremely narrow and well defined or else would be quickly overturned on first amendment grounds.
The TikTok bill is also a separate issue. And again, I think the statement “give us control or be banned” would be misleading. That implies it’s trying to force a US government takeover of TikTok, which is not at all the case, it’s trying to force a sale to domestic private ownership (not under the control of the US government). Though I personally disagree with that bill and find it problematic. I’m not sure we should be following China’s example here and forcing international companies to divest assets to domestic ones. I think a more nuanced and more effective position would be following the eu’s lead, and regulating how all big tech companies are dealing with data.