IANAL, but I don't think they have to prove it's hard or easy to find and read it. The crux of the case is whether the government was seeking to censor it, and

IANAL, but I don't think they have to prove it's hard or easy to find and read it. The crux of the case is whether the government was seeking to censor it, and if they did to any extent succeed in it. As I posted elsewhere, I think this is the heart of the lawsuit: > public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so That right there is clearly a First Amendment Violation if the result was one less person seeing and reading it.