NetChoice’s argument is persuasive. As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute the Act implicates social media companies’ First Amendment rights. 87 The speech at issue in this case— the speech social media companies engage in when they make decisions about how to construct and operate their platforms—is protected speech. 88 The Supreme Court has long held that “[a]n entity ‘exercis[ing] editorial discretion in the selection and presentation’ of content is ‘engage[d] in speech activity’” protected by the First Amendment.89 And this July, in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Court affirmed these First Amendment principles “do not go on leave when social media are involved.” 90 Indeed, the Court reasoned that in “making millions of . . . decisions each day” about “what third-party speech to display and how to display it,” social media companies “produce their own distinctive compilations of expression.”91 Regarding the more pressing question—whether the Act facially violates social media companies’ First Amendment rights—the probable answer is “yes.” As explained below,