This is unsurprising. A fairly reliable determinant for how the Court will rule is found using a materialist analysis. That is, the Court will generally side with corporations and capital owners when given the choice. This isn't new to this particular Supreme Court. There's a long history here.
The interesting part isn't how the Court decided but how it decided. It didn't address Section 230 at all and only made a very narrow ruling that isn't really applicable beyon dthis case.
The Court is, and always has been, political. Skepticism remains about the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 in the conservative wing of the court so it's no surprise that this ruling is narrow so as to not set precedent.
> A fairly reliable determinant for how the Court will rule is found using a materialist analysis. That is, the Court will generally side with corporations and capital owners when given the choice.
This is a big claim. Do you have any evidence to support it?
In the wake of someone trying to prove the same for Congress, it was conclusively shown that the opposite was true:
The interesting part isn't how the Court decided but how it decided. It didn't address Section 230 at all and only made a very narrow ruling that isn't really applicable beyon dthis case.
The Court is, and always has been, political. Skepticism remains about the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 in the conservative wing of the court so it's no surprise that this ruling is narrow so as to not set precedent.