Looks to me like the social media case could have been a slam dunk had Musk provided information. That’s because the plaintiffs have to show close correlation between the gov communication and the harmful resulting actions of the platform. Sounds like the plaintiffs here just didn’t have sufficient data/proof according to the majority opinion.
But Musk had more than enough data to show causality to harm, had he made that available (instead of his fake little limited hangout releases).
This case was decided on the issue of standing, not on the merits. While I don’t disagree with you that having Musk provide evidence of what happened with regard to Twitter censorship would be helpful the next time around, that isn’t why we got this result. We not only need better arguments, meaning specific proof of censorship that resulted directly from government communications to these companies, But more importantly, we need to find plaintiffs who were injured in some way by the censorship of these companies.