There is an interesting question about when a site's curation of its content (including recommendation algorithms) crosses the line into making its own viewpoin

There is an interesting question about when a site's curation of its content (including recommendation algorithms) crosses the line into making its own viewpoint that incurs liability not protected by §230. In an extreme hypothetical, were Youtube to show nothing but terrorist propaganda in its recommended videos, it's challenging to argue that it deserves immunity because it's "just" hosting user-generated content. Whether §230 still applies in such a case is notionally the goal of this SCOTUS case. It's an interesting question--even an important question--and why SCOTUS chose to hear it is clear. Unfortunately, flicking through all the briefs, it seems that no one actually wants to answer that question. Instead, everybody is trying to argue for or against §230 more or less in its entirety. I guess people took Thomas's complaint about §230 in a prior dissent and everyone assumed they could find enough votes on SCOTUS to gut §230 entirely? (Ironically, Thomas seems to be firmly pro-§230 in this specific case).