It means nothing. Thomas has a penchant for gratuitously giving his personal opinion when nobody is asking for it. If I had a nickel for every time Thomas wrote to suggest the court should pick up an ancillary issue in the future, and then proceeded to write his future opinion....

Sometimes I wish the court would pick up an issue. Many years ago Thomas wrote in a cert denial regarding developer exactions (i.e. making a developer pay for something as a price for project approval) that the court should find a [better] case to make clear the boundaries of unconstitutional exactions. But of course the court has yet to do that, and even if it did I have little reason to believe (unfortunately) the rest of the justices shared Thomas' disdain for exactions.

The same is likely true here: I doubt most of the other justices have a pressing desire to step into the middle of the Section 230 debate, and even if they did I doubt even more that they would share Thomas' peculiar interpretation of the law. Note that just because Thomas (or any justice) says that their interpretation is the obvious "plain text" meaning, that doesn't actually mean it is.

Not a lawyer, but lawfareblog coverage should be accessible no? (I'm reading it right now).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-declines-review-se...

it's only 10 pages, single column. you want someone else to filter what the judge is saying for you?