Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516474571 Page: 29 Date Filed: 09/16/2022 No. 21-51178 “hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public”). The Platforms’ own representations confirm this. 9 They’ve told their users: “We try to explicitly view ourselves as not editors. . . . We don’t want to have editorial judgment over the content that’s in your feed.” 10 They’ve told the public that they “may not monitor,” “do not endorse,” and “cannot take responsibility for” the content on their Platforms. 11 They’ve told Congress that their “goal is to offer a platform for all ideas.” 12 And they’ve told courts—over and over again—that they simply “serv[e] as conduits for other parties’ speech.” 13 9 To the extent that these representations vary between Platforms, that further cuts against the propriety of this facial, pre-enforcement challenge. Cf. supra Part III.A. To establish associational standing, the plaintiff trade associations asserted in the district court that this suit “does not require individualized facts about any particular covered social media platform.” ROA.645; see also Tex. Ass’n of Mfrs. v. U.S. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 989 F.3d 368, 377 (5th Cir. 2021) (stating the relevant rule). So the Platforms may not now rely on individualized facts to claim that, for example, one Platform operates like a newspaper even if the others don’t. 10 Ravi Somaiya, How Facebook Is Changing the Way Its Users Consume Journalism, N.Y. Times, Oct. 26, 2014, https://nyti.ms/3ommZXb. 11 Twitter, Terms of Service § 3, https://twitter.com/en/tos (last visited Aug. 6, 2022) [hereinafter Twitter Terms]; see also Facebook, Terms of Service § 4.3, https://www.facebook.com/terms.php (last visited Aug. 6, 2022) [hereinafter Facebook Terms] (“We are not responsible for [users’] actions or conduct . . . or any content they share.”); YouTube, Terms of Service, https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms (last visited Aug. 6, 2022) (“Content is the responsibility of the person or entity that provides it to [YouTube].”). 12 Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Antitrust, Com. and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 33 (2020) (testimony of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook, Inc.). 13 Brief for Appellees at 1, Klayman v. Zuckerberg, No. 13-7017 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 25, 2013); see also, e.g., Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss at 10 n.5, Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 29