What #Google and other "big tech" firms need to do is really speak *directly* to the public at large, in nontechnical terms, laying out for them how so many of the sites and services that they've taken for granted for decades will be decimated by changes to Section 230.
Most of the public is just hearing what amounts to propaganda from politicians on both the Right and the Left, and most users are oblivious to the fact that they're on the verge of being cut off from most user generated content, will be inundated with untriaged trash, and will ultimately be forced to use government ID to access most sites.
This is the *reality* coming, and when I explain this to most people they're (1) horrified and (2) want to know why nobody has explained this to them before.
Stop with the Streisand Effect panic Google and others, and show people what they have to lose. Stop depending on third parties alone to provide these crucial explanations and contexts!
@lauren Regarding the recommendation case: In the past, I'd have given SCOTUS the benefit of the doubt they won't rule over-broadly. If they *don't*, I don't think this case specifically threatens 230 greatly... In the scope of the question under consideration, they should be ruling on whether 230 was intended to cover recommendation engines, and given that the way to trivially comply with any carve-out there is to... Turn off the right panel, it'd have significant effect but wouldn't destroy YouTube.
... but I'm a lot less assured that this SCOTUS doesn't rule over-broadly than I want to be.
@mtomczak There are other cases lined up related to Florida and Texas, etc. These all interrelate, and even a narrowly bad ruling in the current one sets the table for disaster in the following ones. And that's only the start.