Thread by @jess_miers

Alright, now that I've had more than a minute to think about all of this, some additional thoughts:

This was the *best case scenario* for these cases today. The Taamneh opinion only reinforces the status quo (a major win for websites AND users). #SCOTUS

https://twitter.com/jess_miers/status/1659222551510523904

I have to say, it was surprising to see such a clean win authored by Justice Thomas no less. I think many of us assumed he would have been eager to undermine existing precedence around 1A and even 230 as applied to online publishers.

That's not at all what occurred here.

Keep in mind of course, this was a very narrow issue for SCOTUS (aiding and abetting law). So, it doesn't really come as a surprise that we got such a clean decision here.

The bigger concern really was how the Court would approach Gonzalez. They got it exactly right.

When it comes to generative AI, the upcoming cases in Texas and Florida, today's opinion doesn't do much.

Sure, plaintiffs will continue to make arguments that invoke algorithmic neutrality (perhaps even pointing to some of the imprecise language from the opinion today).

And sure, Justice Thomas is probably still not convinced that online publishers are not actually common carriers (as evidenced by the few analogies to mail and telephone operators found in his opinion).

But this is no different from where we started, well before cert.

Today's opinion was clear as to causation, duty, and even common law tort claims: Internet services do not inherit liability for operating as they have been since the early days of the modern web.

And while this may be a win for industry, it's really a win for all of us. An alternative holding would disrupt the delicate user created content ecosystem as we know it.

Viva la Internet.

@threadreaderapp unroll