Your conclusion ("this is a terrible precedent") is correct, but the way you get there makes no sense. The government makes laws about how private companies an

Your conclusion ("this is a terrible precedent") is correct, but the way you get there makes no sense. The government makes laws about how private companies and citizens can act all the time without funding them. You think the government has to fund every auto maker in order to impose emissions standards on them? Or that every company making communications equipment/chips is funded by the government, so that they can impose regulations on what spectrum they can use? This is a terrible precedent because there is no sane, logical way to define social networks as common carriers, and because Section 230 was specifically written to allow and encourage content moderation.