Supreme Court blocks Texas social media law

I wish the majority had published an opinion. I think this was the right call, but Alito makes some good points and I wish I could see their refutation. Is it because of irreparable harm from the disclosures or being forced to host others' speech? That seems reasonable, but I don't know the processes surrounding this enough to say.

I am interested in how this shakes out, because I don't see a clearly correct side. On one hand, being forced to host the speech of others seems like a First Amendment issue. On the other hand, spending a decade pitching yourself as how people connect now and then claiming not to be a public square seems troublesome.

Alito cites PruneYard Shopping v. Robins [1], which does seem to support his case. The Supreme Court held that California could force a private shopping center to allow protesters to gather signatures. The underlying reasoning was that the 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from abridging free speech, and did not prevent a state from having more expansive free speech rights.

I'm curious what the opposing case law is, because I'm not a lawyer and not motivated enough to go find it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...