justice thomas, but i think that is the thrust of hurley, that is the thrust of pg&e, that is ththrust of tornillo. in all of those cases, a private party did not want to convey ordieminate the speech of a third-rt, and in every case, the government said, no, we have some really good reason here why this private party has to diemate the message of the third-party. >> i have been unfortunate to have been here for most of the development of the internet. and on the argument under section 230, which has been you are melya conduit, which is the case from the '90s, perhaps the early 2000's. now, you are sang yoare engaged ineditorial content, but does nothing to undermine your seio230 document? >> with respect to justice thasyou are here for all of the. i wasn't here for all of the. my understanding is that my client had consistently tan the position that they are t mere conduits, and ngss in passing section 230 look at mecommon law cases and basically said, if you arjust a pure conduit, that means you are free from liability, but if you start becoming a publisher by keeping bad conduct out, then u lon