The Ruling Sounded Balanced to Me
I am not clear why social media evidence should really be any different to any other evidence. Unless the defendant objects that it is not contributing or supporting their claim in which case was the claim really valid?
Perhaps people should think about what claims make sense and are supportable with evidence. A claim that you cannot walk swim, pilot an aircraft or whatever after an accident needs to show that there was some capability to perform those activities that has now been lost.
Otherwise it will become like the old joke about a man with a broken arm,
Man 'Will I be able to play the piano when I am repaired?'
Surgeon: 'Should think so.'
Man: 'Wow, remarkable, I could not play the damned thing before the accident'