@ocdtrekkie This ruling largely broke the way I anticipated it would. I was TBH a little surprised the case ever *got* to the Supreme Court; the allegation was that the people who had killed Gonzalez were radicalized by YouTube-algoirthm-fed videos. That's like trying to sue Reader's Digest because someone read a trimmed-down version of *Atlas Shrugged* and decided as a result to go burn down an oil field to "stick it to the moochers."

There's a causal chain of responsibility here that is fundamentally not recognized in our society at present, *regardless* of the content that was selected by the algorithm. And opening that responsibility can dumps a *lot* of worms on the table; it increases, for example, state authority to regulate the kind of media people are allowed to see in general because it could radicalize them. Really hard to square that approach to culture-shaping with the intent and core purpose of the First Amendment (you're *supposed* to, for example, be able to tell your neighbor that capitalism is busted, or the draft is bullshit, or that algorithms are scrambling our brains, without a State arm having the authority to squelch that speech because it's gonna radicalize someone).