> The 1st Amendment rights of the corporate-personed platforms were prioritized above the 1st Amendment rights of the people posting on the platforms - implying

> The 1st Amendment rights of the corporate-personed platforms were prioritized above the 1st Amendment rights of the people posting on the platforms - implying that as the conveyor of the speech of the individual speakers, the platform's rights subsume the rights of the speakers. Well, yeah. As Billy Joel said, "Yes, you can speak your mind, but not on my time." I don't have to carry your speech if I don't agree with it. > I really don't understand any of this, and it is alarming. Instead of Congress or the courts establishing a reasoable framework about how to regulate speech on the internet, it has just handed individuals' 1st Amendment rights to the people who own the internet. I think, if you understood it better, you might be less alarmed. First, the Supreme Court didn't hand anything to anyone. It said that lower courts were incorrectly analyzing the First Amendment aspects of laws that regulate speech on the internet. It didn't say their conclusions were right, or even wrong. It said their analysis wasn't good enough. Yes, Congress should create some guidance. In fact, I think they did - I think that's what Section 230 was. But two states decided they wanted a different set of rules, and wrote state laws. In a few more years, we're going to find out whether those state laws are constitutional. If they are (or even if they aren't), they're going to give some guidance as to what changes are possible to Section 230. Then, maybe, Congress will decide to pass something, and then we can have lawsuits about that. TL;DR: For today, nothing has actually changed. Nothing.