In this discussion, Judge Collins only credits Section 230, and assigns no credit to the First Amendment backstop, for Facebook's editorial discretion. For example, he says "whenever Meta selectively censors the speech of third parties on its massive platforms, it is quite literally exercising a government-conferred special power over the speech of millions of others….Meta's construction of massive and widely available platforms for the hosting of the speech of enormous numbers of third parties necessarily means that those platforms exist and operate only by virtue of the immunity conferred by § 230." In focusing solely on Section 230 to the exclusion of the First Amendment, Judge Collins misses a fundamental point that the First Amendment may provide overlapping substantive rights as Section 230, although it may not provide equivalent procedural benefits. This makes his core subconclusion a strawman argument.