NetChoice often argued out of both sides of their mouth when Section 230 protections were in play. During back and forth with NetChoice counsel, Justice Gorsuch observed that NetChoice’s argument was, conveniently, both sides of the coin:

“So it’s speech for the purposes of the First Amendment, your speech, your editorial control, but when we get to Section 230, your submission is that that isn’t your speech?

So now, the cases head back to the lower courts, who've been tasked with doing their homework and using the proper framework to analyze the issues. //

anon-7lqi anon-tf71
4 hours ago
i think administratively you can declare any platform with more that 25% market share as a "public square".
Public squares are obliged to allow speech that smaller venues do not have to.
keeps 230 intact. focuses the law on the companies large enough to impact the public in any meaningful way

JustCause_for_Liberty anon-7lqi
3 hours ago edited
I do not even think its that hard. They get to declare if they are publishers or platforms. If you are a publisher you get no protections from 230 and are subject to liability claims for all content. If you are a platform you get liability protections from 230 but lose all rights to moderate content from users or their speech and posts. If laws are broken from users then refer those to law enforcement. Otherwise its not their job.

Just FYI their self identification of publisher or platform is for the entirety of that service. You either have to sell the Company or completely shut down the service and deploy a completely separate service afterwards to redeclare.