Platforms’ content moderation of terrorism-related content currently sits at a troubling equilibrium, at which platforms anticipatorily adopt a very broad reading of the law, thus preventing the government from having to explain the law’s true reach, let alone attempt to enforce it against social media companies. This equilibrium is the product of platforms’ self-interested risk aversion, an erroneous assumption by the Supreme Court about what the effects of allowing the government to restrict even peaceful speech as “material support” would be, and no one having both the incentive and capacity to change the status quo. As a result, a U.S. law, and the Court’s interpretation of it, has encouraged the suppression of core political discourse, not just beyond the borders of the United States but also within them. The Court’s decision in Humanitarian Law Project thus casts a long shadow over us all.

[Bolding added]

Man, if that bolded phrase doesn’t just describe everything in 2025

Anyway, related 5-4 podcast (archived)