Actually, no.
The judges said their case does have the ideological standing.
Actually, no.
They were given standing on the grounds of
financial harm which they
claimed was a result of conduct by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple. That
alleged conduct being an unlawful conspiracy to reduce their audience, which the courts rejected.
The first threshold necessary for standing, requires you to show some particular and personal harm being done by the conduct of the party that you are suing.
The conduct alone is insufficient grounds for standing. It is harm or injury from some action or conduct of another that begins to establish standing in a court.
If you should ever find any case where standing was granted on "ideological" grounds, please point me to it. Good luck hunting for it.
Standing in the appeals court was automatic as there was already a judgment from a lower court. The grant of standing in the lower court was based on financial harm alleged.
From the lower court ruling: "In other words, the Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible harm—a decrease in revenues—that is fairly traceable to the alleged conspiracy by the Platforms."
