Well, here’s their definition of such a company (from the same link):
155 (9) "Social media company" means a person or entity that:
156 (a) provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders
157 worldwide; and
158 (b) is an interactive computer service.
So, size is really the only relevant discriminator.
> None of which clearly protect GH or SO, the subjects of this thread branch.
I disagree, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35310413 (especially considering that because this law creates a penalty, and because it restricts speech, its definitions of the covered parties and conduct must be read narrowly – and its exceptions read broadly [0] – per the rule of lenity in statutory construction.)
[0] if, in the first instance, it is Constitutional at all.
155 (9) "Social media company" means a person or entity that: 156 (a) provides a social media platform that has at least 5,000,000 account holders 157 worldwide; and 158 (b) is an interactive computer service.
So, size is really the only relevant discriminator.