> This isn’t all that surprising; for all the tsuris regarding 230, the statute and the intent behind it seem quite clear; the drama is that opponents of big tech companies don’t like the statute, not that there’s a real claim that it’s been misinterpreted.

While Section 230 was asserted among the defenses in the case, the Supreme Court decision didn’t address it at all, instead finding the underlying claim failed as a matter of law, making Section 230 immunity irrelevant. The headline saying that it left 230 protections unchanged is technically true, in the same sense as one saying that it left, say, the scope of liability under the Espionage Act in place would be.

But its also misleading clickbait, for much the same reason as one saying that it left, say, the scope of liability under the Espionage Act in place would be.