“The state” has nothing to do with it. This was voted into law by regular voters. Think of it every time someone assumes the common citizen should be involved in writing laws.
Nobody who isn’t too far gone on the Trump Train thinks the bribery story is anything but horse shit. That’s what “unlikely to cost him the election” means.
I think we get stuck with him making more deals, if Biden Senior wins. Oh well. I'm looking forward to a crackhead's version of "Art of the Deal" from junior.
I would be surprised if he was in the administration at all. Most administrations don't appoint a bunch of their family members to positions in the government. That itself is corruption.
I've read that before and I've discussed it with a lawyer (among other related articles & topics). He rolled his eyes at much of it, but he also rolled his eyes at the "platform vs publisher" distinction that so many naive people make. Still, he agrees that social media companies are tickling the dragon's tail when it comes to Section 230 protection.
Before you dismiss my anecdote as one mistaken lawyer, note that the chairman of the FCC (who is a lawyer) and Justice Clarence Thomas both think that Section 230 doesn't offer nearly as much protection as social media companies seem to think it does. In response to recent events, the FCC plans to issue statements clarifying the meaning of Section 230.[1]
1. https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/1316808733805236226 "Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."
