Thread by @jess_miers

Yesterday was only a little busy...so I'm sharing some quick thoughts about the Gonzalez oral args today.

All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic. I was prepared for the Internet's ultimate doomsday.

We're not quite there (yet). #Section230 🧵

Starting with a few moments that gave me hope:

Most surprising for me was Justice Thomas. Right out the gate, he essentially questioned why this case was even being heard.

Which would be totally fair had he not been begging for a 230 case to opine on since 2019 but I digress.

Another surprise:

The Court seemed to appreciate that algorithms and content moderation are essential to the way the Internet functions today and that attempts to create imprecise legal and technological distinctions could have irreparable effects on the modern web.

We heard several justices question the economic impact on today's online services (many of which have business models completely reliant on #Section230).

Many even asked about the irreparable effects their decision could have on the basic functionality of the modern web.

I especially appreciated Justice Kavanaugh's reluctance to accept that there wouldn't be a massive flood of suits following this decision.

He refused to simply take the Petitioners at their word that nothing bad could happen.

On that note, as much as I had thought the Court would be salivating at the chance to upend Section 230, it actually seemed quite the contrary.

The Court was clearly unenthused about touching 230. Several even noting that this is a job for Congress, not the Court.

Wins aside, I remain concerned about how the Court will inadvertently undermine 230 in their forthcoming opinion.

I would hate, for example, to see a holding that suggests 230 only applies to 'neutral algorithms.' Justice Gorsuch seemed equally concerned.

All of the current social media addiction cases are waiting to make the argument that social media companies do not act "neutrally" when they design their services and algorithms to attract users.

This would be an absolute mess.

We heard yesterday (several times) how "confused" the Court was when Petitioner tried to draw thin distinctions between neutral and non-neutral implementations.

I mean the Court was confused because the distinction is legal and technological nonsense.

But therein lies the problem if the Court attempts the line drawing exercises anyway. Courts throughout the nation will be as equally "confused" in trying to apply the distinction.

Plaintiffs thrive in confusion and chaos.

This is precisely why I've been saying that it's not enough for Google to win here.

Quite frankly, I thought the writing was on the wall yesterday -- Google has a solid shot at success.

But that won't matter if the Court does significant damage in arriving at that result.

BTW we really need to retire the "230 was a chatroom law" meme.

Congress made it clear that #Section230 was designed with the future of web technology in mind. Algorithms didn't just magically appear in the 00's. The idea that 1996 was a "pre-algorithm" era is laughable.

I mean FFS the authors of the law themselves have confirmed their intent on numerous occasions.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on Gonzalez.

In an hour, the court will hear arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh (another crucial case in the series of Internet-breaking SCOTUS cases).

I'll be tuning in and you should too.