Does an interactive computer service provider become a state actor when it collaborates with government officials to suppress specific viewpoints, thereby implicating First Amendment protections?

The state -action doctrine limits the power of government to violate individual rights through coercion or inducement of, or close nexus with private intermediaries . Petitioner Children’s Health Defense (“CHD”) allege s that Executive Branch officials specifically targeted its viewpoint on vaccines , and its spokesman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to Meta Platforms, Inc., (“Meta”) which willfully cooperated by censor ing CHD’s protected speech and removing CHD, thereby dampen ing opposition to preferred official polic ies. The lower c ourts dismissed CHD’s complaint , deciding that Meta is a private company entitled to work with G overnment as to what limits should apply to speech on its platforms . The questions presented are: 1. Does Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n , 489 U.S. 602 (1989) , mandate that Meta, an interactive computer service provider which receives 47 U.S.C. § 230 immunity , become a state actor when it affirmatively engages with Executive Branch officials to exercise its State -created privilege to suppress particular viewpoints or speakers ? If so, is the First Amendment implicated ? 2. Does an interactive computer service provider transform private conduct into state action when it willfully conforms its content -moderation process or decision s to Executive Branch preferences to suppress particular protected third -party speech or cede s active, meaningful control of its process or decision s to the State ?