it’s trying to force a sale to domestic private ownership (not under the control of the US government)
The two (private corporations and the government) are so intertwined that you and I are going to have to disagree. I firmly believe a lot of governance happens at the behest of big business, and vice versa. The evidence is in far-reaching, long-lasting decisions like expensive private health care, military spending, environmental choices (especially corporate regulations), and federal minimum wage where it’s clear that at least some decisions are being made on behalf of business over public opinion. There is also definitely a measure of governmental content control involved in the TikTok decision - e.g. here’s Ted Cruz talking during one of the TikTok hearings and mentioning anti-Israel content as a primary concern. Just because the sale is to a private entity doesn’t mean it’s not about control of what people see.
The rest of your points are well-made. To rebut: as I’ve made obvious, I think cases like this fit in well with safety vs. freedom discussions. Also please bear in mind the line from OP’s article: “The appeals court said that individuals at those agencies likely violated the First Amendment by seeking to coerce social media platforms into moderating or changing their content about COVID-19, foreign interference in elections and even Hunter Biden’s laptop.” So as per the article, 1st amendment law is being considered relevant, and coercion of social media is also an issue on the table.