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.
The points are valid.
In essence they pointed the fingers at the platforms.
Unf the reality is that they were coerced by the govt.
Doughty found that water is indeed wet, had SCOTUS not heard this appeal, his ruling stands.