Eric Goldman

This case will be appealed, and the defendants will be challenging the judge's decision about Section 230 and arguing, in fact, it should be back in play.

I think I would pose the question differently and say, what's at stake for us as social media users?

And for us as social media users, I think the stakes are that we benefit

frequently, constantly, every day, multiple times a day from being able to talk to each other online.

We just take that as a given, that that's part of the infrastructure of our society, is that we can have our say online and that we can hear what other people are saying.

And that's at stake.

We should not assume that at the end of the legal shenanigans,

that we will still be able to talk to each other freely.

It might be that we have to pay for that privilege.

It might be that we have to navigate to a small number of players who can survive the legal system.

It might be that those functionalities are just gone.

So what's at stake here really is, can we talk to each other online?

And the answer is, we're not sure.

two of the main issues at trial will be, is there a thing called social media addiction?

And if so, are the social media services legally responsible for the harms it causes?

And in presenting that issue to the jury, both sides are going to bring in a parade of experts.

They're going to have some of the smartest, most accomplished people on these topics coming and beat up on each other.

And so I'm going to be listening very carefully to the evidence that's marshaled here to really get a sense about if there's a counter narrative to the prevailing view that, of course, social media services are addicted users.

Of course, they should be responsible.

That's the default that I think that almost every juror is walking into the jury room feeling.