Instead what they should have done is picked a reasonable size of active users or some other measure and instead of preventing banning of accounts or silencing the speech they should require that the company's policies must be cited in detail for their actions.
For example if Facebook decides that your post should be deleted it must send you the exact portion of their terms of service that you have violated and cite the specific examples of your post that violate those terms of service. There should also be a means of redress or correction available. This way we can see exactly how these companies are censoring people and what their logic and reasoning is and we can tell if that violates pre-existing rights of people. The exact same thing should apply to a ban they must site in detail the actions that you took and the policies that you violated instead of the nebulous violated our terms of service that we don't have to tell you why.
What people fail to understand is terms of service are not a blanket this company can do anything. Any terms of service that are against the law are meaningless such as provisions in a contract that violate the law those provisions hold no power. But when they enforce this they never tell you what you did or why you did it.
This law is just a joke typical paid politicians that are ignoring root problems.
If they really want to they could require users go through many hoops to prove they're in Texas, and then add things like latency issues, so that they "technically" comply with the ruling but not really. Kind of like what Apple does with their App Store (not latency but other stuff, like allowing dating apps in Sweden to use custom payment, making custom payment have all these requirements, etc.)
Bonus points for ensuring that the front page gets filled with spam, because that's what you get with "zero censorship". Even though artificially down-weighing content isn't the same as censoring it. Oh, and they also secretly unlist the conservative content the bill actually aims to protect anyways.
Commercial messages are not entitled to the same protections as political opinions, so no one is asking for "zero censorship".
I suppose a law can't force social media companies to filter spam and make their front pages bearable to read, but if your suggestion is that they should maliciously comply by unnecessarily and deliberately ruining their own services for people in Texas, then they could just as well not offer the services to people in Texas at all, which would achieve the same result and be cheaper.
This is why state governments can require that companies put warning labels or nutritional information on their products, which would otherwise be considered compelled speech.
To give another controversial example, there's a difference between a manufacturer choosing not to produce customized cakes, and a manufacturer choosing not to produce cakes customized for interracial couples.