[Ancesthntr]

Wow, I disagree with the substance of the decision, it does give our side another bite at the apple. What they are saying is that our side needs to present a better case. Part of the problem is that our side argued that everything the social media companies did with regard to censorship was because of the government, when any idiot could’ve told you that a bunch of left-leaning tech companies (including One, Facebook, whose principal owner spent some $400 million on vote harvesting for the Democrat Party) would do some on their own without specific direction. This needs to be refined to more closely reflect reality. Again, we have another bite at the apple somewhere down the line. We also now know that states aren’t the proper plaintiffs. Maybe what our side needs to do is find a bunch of people who have had their posts censored, including political candidates and independent journalists trying to report dirt on Leftist candidates, office holders and NGOs.

[FLT-bird]

The problem is: anybody whose post was censored suffered direct harm. Anybody who was banned suffered direct harm. Anybody whose speech was chilled suffered direct harm. Anybody who was denied the chance to read an opposing POV and the information contained within it suffered direct harm. The plaintiffs should not have to clear the hurdle of showing X post was censored by Y Big Tech platform after receiving a "suggestion" to do so from Z government employee. When anybody in Big Tech receives a "suggestion" from the government which has total regulatory power over them, it ain't a "suggestion" and everybody knows it.

It looks like the only option now is for states to regulate Big Tech like utilities and pass laws which enact harsh punishments for any discriminatory provision of service for anything but....key words here....CLEARLY ILLEGAL speech. Get Texas and Florida and several other red states to do so and that will have a big impact.