That's troubling. Thanks for taking the time to find that article. I guess the discussion is actually a two-parter: * Does moderation imply responsibility? *

That's troubling. Thanks for taking the time to find that article. I guess the discussion is actually a two-parter: * Does moderation imply responsibility? * Does moderation require neutrality? From the Wired article, it seems like #1 here was a fulcrum in the case. I think this protection is slowly being eroded, sadly, with those new laws. #2 is kind of the topic-du-jour, where I'm seeing a lot of unfounded claims that it's true. It would surprise me incredibly if it were, but given how the law was twisted in case #1, wouldn't entirely be a shock to discover the same going on. I guess we'll have to wait for case law to really say for certain, but I still feel pretty confident that the government can't compel a platform to neutrally apply moderation/carry all speech - even though their actions in doing so may reveal their intentions in an ancillary case, e.g. the one you linked.