article full of propaganda that falsely states what texas law does, plus in their desperate attempt to bash this court opinion, they use arguments that got destroyed in the same court opinion.

some example.

Its supposed anti-censorship provisions are so strict that it would likely prevent the major social media platforms from removing content touting Nazism or white supremacy

protected speech.

Under existing First Amendment law, individuals and private businesses have a right to speak their own minds, and also a right not to speak when they do not wish to. [...]This freedom allows companies to choose which viewpoints of its users it publishes, too

nobody is stopping them to speak their own mind or refrain from doing so for example on their company account. they are arguing that them censoring viewpoints on their own platform is a First Amendment expression, which is not. also they aren't even publishers.

article full of propaganda that falsely states what texas law does, plus in their desperate attempt to bash this court opinion, they use arguments that got destroyed in the same court opinion.

some example.

Its supposed anti-censorship provisions are so strict that it would likely prevent the major social media platforms from removing content touting Nazism or white supremacy

protected speech.

Under existing First Amendment law, individuals and private businesses have a right to speak their own minds, and also a right not to speak when they do not wish to.

nobody is stopping them to speak their own mind or refrain from doing so.

This freedom allows companies to choose which viewpoints of its users it publishes, too

no. also they aren't even publishers.