[DSH]

I disagree with the author. The censorship was egregious but the plaintiffs in this case had no cause of action against the U.S. government. THEY were not censored; FACEBOOK was ... which means Facebook has the legal standing to sue the government over a First Amendment violation, not ordinary citizens or state governments.

You couldn't be more wrong. I suggest you read Alito's dissent. You fundamentally misunderstand what this case was about.

[Alberta's Child]

I did read Alito's dissent, and I think he is 100% correct on the facts and 100% wrong on the law.

Note how much time and text he devotes to the alleged "harms" suffered by the plaintiffs in the case. For one thing, the claims of harm were specious at best. More importantly ... to the extent any of these people suffered any harm at all, their legal recourse would be against Facebook, not the U.S. government. (NOTE: Facebook would then have a strong incentive to pursue a third-party claim against the U.S. government in its defense against a lawsuit by these plaintiffs.)

The most compelling point in the court's decision is this (the highlighted item is mine):

The plaintiffs claim standing based on the "direct censorship" of their own speech as well as their "right to listen" to others who faced social-media censorship. Notably, both theories depend on the platform's actions -- yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.

I'm surprised this case even made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, with this crippling flaw in it.