Editing A Comment on Malwarebytes v. Enigma

''Disclaimer: '''I am not a lawyer''', and this article '''is not and should not be relied on as legal advice'''.''

On first glance, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf ''Malwarebytes v. Enigma''] may not seem to be very important. It doesn't seem to be. It's one of those cases where one party has appealed a case all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't think the case is important enough for them to take. 

But, even if its legal effect may not extend beyond the medium- or even short-term, it has historical value. For one, it is the first time the Supreme Court has interpreted or even mentioned a very important statute, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. For two, it shows how the Supreme Court, or at least one justice of it (nobody else joined this "statement"), is inclined to interpret section 230 should a case revolving around it ever come before the Court.