I’ve skimmed former guy’s complaint against Facebook and it’s every bit as stupid as you’d think it is.
It’s stupid on so many levels it’s head-spinning.
It’s insane enough that he’s claiming Facebook’s a state actor. Yes, in extreme cases, if otherwise non-state actors are acting in cahoots with the government, they can become state actors. But that’s an absurdly hard thing to show, and nothing like that occurred here.
But what makes this meta-insane is that he’s claiming that the Facebook was a FEDERAL state actor because it was entangled with the FEDERAL government at a time when HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The defendants need to file a Rule 11 motion with their motion to dismiss.
There’s this, too
https://twitter.com/dickius/status/1412806602260987906
Not only that, and this is just another hypocrisy point, not a real legal point since the case is frivolous no matter what, his state-action argument is based upon Democratic legislators threatening to repeal 230–which was something *former guy* also did on multiple occasions.
Yeah, so you’d think
https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1412833128566169606
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
