The bill only allows enforcement by the Texas Attorney General, who can decide who to go after. Creating an over-broad law and then giving someone the power to selectively apply it is putting a huge amount of power in their hands.<p>Do you think the AG is going to go after companies censoring their political enemies? Of course not - this is about ensuring their allies are protected only. Moreover because the law is so nuts, companies can't "just" comply with the law, they actively need to court the state AG's favour so they don't get sued.<p>This is't about making Wikipedia illegal - it's about making everything online illegal so they can control internet discourse.
> it has more than 97 million monthly active users on the site.<p>> And the interactive nature of the site is not incidental to the service. It’s the whole point.<p>I don't understand this part. I consult Wikipedia many times per week, but I am not an "active user", I don't have an account, and I don't use it "interactively" at all -- just read-only.
Hopefully this is not a controversial statement. But I think it's interesting how this law and it's existence is being contextualized in wildly different ways depending on political leanings.
Wikipedia isn't censoring anything at all. The users are, but this law doesn't prevent them.<p>I'm flagging this because this article is pure stupidity. Which ironically is a claim the author of this piece is leveling at others, not realizing it applies to him more than anyone else.