I think there's two disjoint issues here that are meant to be handled by separate entities, but people want them to be handled by one entity. The first is whet

I think there's two disjoint issues here that are meant to be handled by separate entities, but people want them to be handled by one entity. The first is whether section 230 is being correctly interpreted. This is undeniably the domain of the Supreme Court. In my opinion, section 230 is being correctly interpreted; moderation does not somehow remove the immunity. This bit seems pretty salient on that point: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. The second issue is whether section 230, as it exists, is still a good idea. That question _should_ be for Congress to decide, not the Supreme Court. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that at some point, moderation can start to look a lot like publishing and perhaps should be treated similarly. The current law seems pretty clear that that's not the case, and a ruling that changes that starts to look an awful lot like writing laws by strange interpretation. It's all kind of paired with the inability of Congress to get anything meaningful. People have gotten used to Congress being ineffective, and are now looking at the SC to effect change. It's a dangerous line to tread, though, since federal judges are appointed rather than elected and don't have a direct feedback mechanism for people to express discontent.