Whether the Supreme Court will correct the 9th Circuit's misinterpretation of 47 U.S. Code § 230 immunity and its potential impact on internet platforms

] a) The 9th circuit >s HUgSHli! 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c) (1) subverting SH i]ii!tfeiiaia@ . This was called “republishing nonsense ”. ' SThe,9th circuit from it, not supported by any text-of cl incl. short title. j^|iP 2 3 4 5 C) The of “republishing ” and . “immunity*, benefitting one specific group —criminal syndicates (social media companies) notoriously The 9th circuit ’s nonsense, if applied fully, voids the modern internet in full : if applied partially, turns it into a dark web. Amazon and PayPal and eBay will all have to be out of business; so are they immune with any dealing of user info and with most frauds. d) The 9th’circuit ’s BMBHMiBH (“republishing nonsense ” and “immunity business ”, the latter of which is purely original) (not the actual , act by the actual Congress) is in such direct and impudent EolMLiSiiB ■ e) Whether the could be subverted at free will by judge, especially w/ FRCP 50’s strict limitations to judgments as a matter of law. h) The current ■ ' which is a’result'df ighbririg'thg plain text of rule 65. If 65 is applied as it is written, this issue dissolves. Specifically, court has to answer when a TRO transforms into a PI. Or should TRO be seen as a PI? iff Afl^kFOUi^^ asked that the SC corrects its earlier subversion of law in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024). relates directly to enforcin g the section 5 of amendri^ t XW;f ■ I)"? Conspicuous violation of-SC precedent as^kat ed' andfiled • lilfjii Putting insurrection on.recor<@6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 use: i 22 m 23 24 25 ’26 27 28 . 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Petition -2