This Axios "article" does not mention the actual cases[1][2], so I'm left to trust that the two people in the by-line actually know what they're talking about.

This Axios "article" does not mention the actual cases[1][2], so I'm left to trust that the two people in the by-line actually know what they're talking about. In case you don't like making those sorts of assumptions, here's the summary from scotusblog on the two cases. Oral argument is 21-22 FEB. >Issue: Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. >Issues: (1) Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and “regularly” works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use; and (2) whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-googl... [2] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-taamneh/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/twitter-inc-v-ta...