I don't believe any major social media companies are based in Georgia.<p>The practical effects and constitutionality of the bill are probably irrelevant anyways. The narrative of Republicans being banned from Twitter just for stating their beliefs is useful for energizing their voter base.
> It declares that social media companies that have more than 20 million users in the United States are common carriers and that they can’t block people from receiving certain messages based on viewpoints, location, race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, gender, sexual orientation or disability.<p>My guess would be that almost any text that a social media company would want to ban (from election misinformation, to racial slurs, to incitement to commit an atrocity, to bad medical advice) could be phrased in the form of a "viewpoint", and therefore it would be impossible to block the message or ban the sender of the message.<p>Hopefully, though, there exists a countermeasure in the form of allowing users to choose whether to opt in to various types of filtering (with whatever dark pattern the company thinks it can get away with to make people all choose the same restrictive set of filters, so that advertisers don't have their content placed next to these objectionable posts).<p>I can't imagine a law saying that users can't choose what and who to filter, and companies would still be allowed to filter or ban based on the volume of messages sent (to prevent spam) and "inauthentic behavior" (to prevent fake accounts).