a) The 9th circuit's interpretation of 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c) (1) subverting statutory interpretation. This was called "republishing nonsense".

b) The 9th circuit's doctrine of "republishing" and "immunity", benefitting one specific group — criminal syndicates (social media companies) notoriously.

c) 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 interpretation of "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 conflict with the statute.

e) Whether the statute could be subverted at free will by judge, especially w/ FRCP 50's strict limitations to judgments as a matter of law.

f) The current preliminary injunction issue, which is a result of ignoring the 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?

g) Whether the SC should correct its earlier subversion of law in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024).

h) Conspicuous violation of SC precedent as stated and filed.

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