A court just blew up internet law because it thinks YouTube isn?t a website

And without intervention from another court, it’s going to put social networks that operate in Texas at legal risk.HB 20, to recap a little, bans social media platforms from removing, downranking, demonetizing, or otherwise “discriminat[ing] against” content based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person.” It applies to any “internet website or application” that hits 50 million monthly active users and “enables users to communicate with other users,” with exceptions for internet service providers and media sites. Social networks also aren’t allowed to ban users based on their location in Texas, a provision clearly meant to stop sites from simply pulling out of the state — which might be the simplest solution for many of them.This is all happening because a judge doesn’t believe YouTube is a website.The Monday hearing put Paxton and a NetChoice attorney in front of Fifth Circuit judges Leslie Southwick (who voted against the majority), Andrew Oldham, and Edith Jones. It is much worse than not knowing YouTube is a website — a term Jones seems to be using metaphorically to mean a publisher of speech.There’s a broad sense that places like YouTube feel powerful enough to be utilities, so judges and lawmakers (and Elon Musk) can get away with throwing around vague terms like “modern public square.” But neither Paxton nor the Fifth Circuit judges have even bothered with a legal framework that would focus on the world’s most powerful platforms.