The plaintiff (the people suing YouTube/Google) address this issue on pages 42-47 [1] Their argument is that if you are asking the server for information store

The plaintiff (the people suing YouTube/Google) address this issue on pages 42-47 [1] Their argument is that if you are asking the server for information stored on the server, you are using an interactive computer service which is covered by Section 230. When that remote computer is giving you stuff you didn't ask for, it's not a server and not an interactive computer service as defined by the law. Reddit and HN give 3rd party content a score based on 3rd party actions (upvotes, moderation). When you visit HN or Reddit, you click on links and your computer requests the 3rd party content that meets a minimum score value and is order according to that scoring system, and thus HN/Reddit are providing an interactive computer system as defined by the law. The plaintiff is clearly painting the Supreme Court a path that it can take so that they win the case while also not destroying the internet. Reddit, Wikipedia, and many others are filing these sky-is-falling briefs with the court to remind them of the danger of not taking that path (if they choose to let the plaintiff win). [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...