[W]hile the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. The Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence. The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole.

You know why evidence collected illegally is inadmissible, even if it absolutely, irrefutably proves the guilt of the defendant? Because we want to create the most powerful disincentive possible for police officers violating the law in obtaining evidence.

I don't particularly care if Facebook would have chosen to censor the same stuff the government asked it to on its own. I don't care if it was just a suggestion that Facebook was free to refuse and not coercion. The idea of the federal government even asking a private company to be their proxy in censorship is so repugnant to the 1st Amendment that the nuances don't matter, and it should be treated under a similar "fruit of the poison tree doctrine" as illegal searches.

It's shit decisions like this that have convinced me that, just like politics and elections, the judicial branch is just a bunch of kayfabe bullshit.