I don't really understand your criticism. Many of the points in the article seem to just be highlighting how just "adhering to the precedent set by US law"(wel

I don't really understand your criticism. Many of the points in the article seem to just be highlighting how just "adhering to the precedent set by US law"(well, international law, which Musk has said he will adhere to) can lead to "vague rulings and unhappy users who felt like they were being silenced". Sure there are some other points, but do you really think clear rulings and happy users is in our future? Is clear rulings even possible? We have a large judiciary often interpreting and setting new precedents.