To me this decision doesn't feel it is demolishing 230, but reducing its scope, a scope that was exanded by other court decisions. Per the article 230 said not

To me this decision doesn't feel it is demolishing 230, but reducing its scope, a scope that was exanded by other court decisions. Per the article 230 said not liable for user content and not liable for restricting content. This case is about liability for reinforcing content. Would love to have a timeline only, non reinforcing content feed.