> The justices directed lower appeals courts to reconsider their decisions regarding these 2021 laws authorizing the states to regulate the content-moderation practices of large social media platforms. Tech industry trade groups challenged the two laws under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on the government's ability to restrict speech.

The 1st Amendment rights of the corporate-personed platforms were prioritized above the 1st Amendment rights of the people posting on the platforms - implying that as the conveyor of the speech of the individual speakers, the platform's rights subsume the rights of the speakers. In other words, people are free to speak to the platform, and the platform is free to communicate that speech as it wishes.

The platform is also allowed to define any terms of service it wishes on the user, which can result in editing of speech by the platform, deletion of speech by the platform, of banning users themselves from the platform. And this is just in respect to speech: they can also force mediation, or the granting of rights to the platform to republish the material - exclusive or otherwise. This cannot even be restricted by state law. Could it be restricted by federal law?

But under section 230, the platform is indemnified in respect to repeating the unlawful or tortious speech of others that it handles (subject to respecting lawful requests for removal.) However, this still leaves the individuals who spoke liable for that unlawful or tortious speech, even after it was intermediated by the platform, who had constitutionally unlimited ability to restrict it.

I don't know that there are any limits to how the platform can control the user's speech that it carries, and I'm wondering if this decision means that placing any limits on any platform conveying speech is unconstitutional? While the restrictions on the user by the platform are arbitrary? And while the government can issue lawful orders to delete speech to the platform, and wealthy people can send lawful requests to the platform for speech to be deleted, and the platform then can make arbitrary decisions about what to delete which are now constitutionally protected and can't be appealed? Why wouldn't they just censor any speech that was challenged?

Telephone services were an exception to this, as a "common carrier," but as they cease to be actual telephone services running over wires and become VOIP systems running over wireless internet, wouldn't they have the same rights? And as "common carrier" isn't an actual status, but a internal classification by a regulatory agency, does that mean in light of Chevron being rolled back, any telephone company could simply challenge this status and instantly win, or insist that they are now a VOIP service and have the above rights anyway? Even before Chevron was rolled back, was this simply something that could be changed by regulators on a whim?

Does this effectively end all free speech for people who do not own presses, or telephone companies, in a way that has been declared to be absolute i.e. it would be a constitutional violation to establish any limits on platform editorial control or disconnection of services altogether for any platform's arbitrary reasons?

Also, since Chevron is gone, unless there has been some law passed by Congress specifically designating who common carriers are, could this give electric companies editorial control over how people use electricity, or water companies editorial control over how people use water?

I really don't understand any of this, and it is alarming. Instead of Congress or the courts establishing a reasoable framework about how to regulate speech on the internet, it has just handed individuals' 1st Amendment rights to the people who own the internet. We're only left with speaking with our mouths, in public, and our ability to do that is also severely limited (although through different means.)

Scary times.