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.
But they are saying they don’t have standing because they haven’t demonstrated the causal relationship to the harm from the government communications.