For a guy who thinks the Court shouldn't legislate, Thomas sure is keen on re-writing Section 230.
Congress chose to protect online services from liability for user content. That's entirely separate from, and immaterial to, the expressiveness of their choices.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
The entire reason for Section 230 is because content hosted by the platform could be deemed expressive--otherwise why would you need to protect services from being treated as the *publisher* of user-generated content?
Some thoughts on Alito's concurrence in the Netchoice cases in which he disagrees with the 5+ other justices who wrote that social media platforms have 1st Amendment rights to curate user speech (& he also disagrees with ME). His opinion is poorly reasoned and ahistorical. But 2 special points:
