I guess there wasn’t a preponderance of bribes and Trump doesn’t have a notable preference, so the grotesquely corrupt and incompetent Supreme Court has to turn to someone else to tell them what to do.
An amateur tip (at this point, apparently even an amateur understands the law better than the SC does) - look for precedents in similar instances.
For instance, are phone companies liable for what their customers do on their phone network? Are road construction companies liable for what people do on the roads? Are power companies liable for what people do with their electricity?
The answers are no, no and no.
So now ask yourself, why is that?
And if you’re able to actually reason (somebody can maybe walk the slower and/or more corrupted justices through the steps), you’ll find your answer.
Best of luck.
Of course, the true reasoning has nothing at all to do with precedent, or rationality, or any silly little things like that, no no.
Is there an industry that stands to make billions by restricting what people do on their phonecalls? No.
Is there an industry that stands to make billions by restricting what people do with their electricity? No.
Is there an industry that stands to make billions by restricting what people do on the Internet? YES.
Motive, and opportunity.
Bingo.
Well… that and the government is always looking for excuses for additional surveillance, and I’m sure they’re eager to buy all of the data the ISPs will have to harvest.
But yeah - an awful lot of the reason for this is simply that a bunch of rent-seeking datalords has bought and paid for it. The fortunes they make off of other peoples creativity depend entirely on getting somebody else to gatekeep for them.
The biggest difference is that the laws and precedents around phones come from a time when the expectation of privacy wasn’t long dead and buried. We’ve gotten used to having all of our activities tracked and recorded, and our data sold a thousand times a day. When you start with the assumption that ISPs will and should track everyone’s activity, then liability for not acting when they know they are enabling illegal activity makes some sense.
It’s wrong, and absolutely fucked up. But it’s just another logical step on the same path we’ve been heading down for a long time.