USCA11 Case: 21-12355 8 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Opinion of the Court Page: 8 of 67 21-12355 Silicon Valley ideology.” Id. By signing the bill, the Governor sought to “fight[] against [the] big tech oligarchs that contrive, manipulate, and censor if you voice views that run contrary to their radical leftist narrative.” Id. S.B. 7072’s enacted findings are more measured. They assert that private social-media platforms are important “in preserving first amendment protections for all Floridians” and, comparing platforms to “public utilities,” argue that they should be “treated similarly to common carriers.” S.B. 7072 § 1(5), (6). That, the Act says, is because social-media platforms “have unfairly censored, shadow banned, deplatformed, and applied post-prioritization algorithms to Floridians” and because “[t]he state has a substantial interest in protecting its residents from inconsistent and unfair actions” by the platforms. Id. § 1(9), (10). To these ends, S.B. 7072 contains several new statutory provisions that apply to “social media platforms.” The term “social media platform” is defined using size and revenue thresholds that appear to target the “big tech oligarchs” about whose “narrative” and “ideology” the bill’s sponsor and Governor DeSantis had complained. Even so, the definition’s broad conception of what a “social media platform” does may well sweep in other popular websites, like the crowdsourced reference tool Wikipedia and virtual handmade craft-market Etsy: [A]ny information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider that: