[0]: In this example, I connect to an Oregon ISP and respond to requests being relayed through this ISP, but I never directly connect to servers in other states. This is a reductionist view, and may be silly, but it helps make my point.
The sibling comment by dragonwriter (which I missed somehow when posting) is a better-worded version of my point about interstate commerce.
Interstate commerce is generally subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state governments, except that state laws which discriminate against out-of-state trade are presumptively illegal, state law cannot negate federal law, and federal law can explicitly (and sometimes implicitly) forbid state regulation of the same conduct. It is not the case that the mere fact that it involves interstate commerce automatically, without federal law addressing the subject, precludes state regulation.
OTOH, to the extent that the elements of site design likely to be challenged under this are very closely related to the functions protected by Section 230, which does include a preemption clause, even if this is otherwise Constitutional applying it is going to often be tricky in practice.
That said, assuredly Meta, Twitter, etc… have some kind of foot print in Utah
The stream of commerce doctrine gets silly pretty quickly since literally everything has some degree of it.
I was convinced federal courts wouldn't allow states to collect sales tax on out-of-state purchases (or at least say states can't enforce it), that seems to be ok.
Consider Wickard v. Filburn[0], in which the courts ruled that a farmer growing crops on his own land, to feed to his own animals, all within a single state, was participating in "interstate commerce". Given this extreme bias towards classifying everything as interstate commerce, I can't imagine that a Utah resident connecting to a California company wouldn't also interstate commerce. This isn't something Utah can regulate.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn