The law only in Texas until it is overturned.

Can I come to your private residence with a group of friends and spout any type of none sense? Isn’t it telling that conservatives can’t come up with a successful social media platform?

> Can I come to your private residence

I don't have 50 million users, so no the law would not apply to my private residence.

The law instead applies to large social media companies. And the law is allowed by the court system.

If I get 50 million users at some point, running a multi-billion dollar company, then yes the law would apply to me.

> until it is overturned.

I'd recommend that you read up on the supreme court opinions on this. They have already made some statements, that is looking like they are not going to overturn the law.

So it’s only after you are a certain size that the government can take control over a private corporation? I thought conservatives were against “socialism”?

> So it’s only after you are a certain size that the government

We have all sorts of laws that only apply to large companies yes.

For example, a random example would be anti-trust laws. Literally they only start applying if you have a large enough effect on the market.

It is an established precedent in many parts of the law.

And similarly, common carrier laws haven't been that controversial. Parties from all sides of the political spectrum support our existing common carrier laws.

So Twitter of all things are a monopoly? Truth Social is proof that anyone can build a social network platform. It being a failure is an example of the free market at work.

Landline phones and the internet infrastructure and the cell network are all examples of natural monopolies, a website is not a natural monopoly.

No, I didn't say that twitter was a monopoly.

Instead, I gave an example of how it is an established precedent that yes certain laws only apply if a company is large, or has a large market effect.

Are you actually unaware that there are laws that only apply if a company is large enough?

This isn't actually true, in the US anti-trust laws don't take into account company size at all. A small company can engage in anti-competitive practices, and a monopoly isn't inherently in violation of anti-trust laws.

There are laws that only apply if a company has enough employees, and tax stuff that applies only above certain revenue, but I'm not actually aware of any other regulations that apply if a company has too many customers.

> in the US anti-trust laws don't take into account company size at all.

It takes into account market power.

> and a monopoly isn't inherently in violation of anti-trust laws.

Good thing that I didn't say that every single monopoly, ever, is in violation of anti-trust law then.

> A small company can engage in anti-competitive practices

It can, yes. But the law is much more likely to make these practices illegal if the company has a large amount of market power.

So yes, the more market power, or larger influence, that a company has, the more likely that some, but not all, laws will apply to them and regulate their behavior.

> It can, yes.

So they don't "only" apply if the company is large enough? That's what I thought.

> So they don't "only" apply

Some laws DO "only" apply if a company has a large enough market power, yes.

The point of the statement, is the general concept of a company being "large", having an effect on if the law applies or not.

> That's what I thought.

Actually, my previous statement is correct, you just mis-interpreted it. Because I was referring to this general concept of a company being large, and how some laws include this factor as a metric that is relevant to if the law applies.

So I was correct the entire time, you just made up a different idea to attack because you were not able to understand what I was saying.