Arguments are done. Minor correction to my original post, Taamneh only regards terrorism, as does Gonzalez, so if Taamneh goes, Gonzalez goes without even considering Section 230.

Near the end of the two-hour argument, the Court did dig deeper into liability for acts committed by those who, it would be argued, were influenced by what they saw on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. The gist of the argument is -if the algorithm used to populate objectionable content (terrorism, pro-anorexia, sex trafficking), if that algorithm was content-neutral, the internet sites could not be held liable. There would have to be something more than just publishing or recommending a site with objectionable views through a content-neutral algorithm. There were hypotheticals on the edges (if the site was reported and YouTube kept recommending vids to people it knew had terroristic attitudes), but by and large, today was a huge win for the larger tech companies in the US. The EU already has laws in place that force sites to filter content, but that won't be coming to the U.S. anytime soon. Unless Congress acts, the odds of that happening are slim.