to the power that technology companies can hold on political discussions and became a major issue during the 2020 United States presidential election, especially with regard to alleged censorship of more conservative viewpoints on social media. Passed when Internet use was just starting to expand in both breadth of services and range of consumers in the United States, Section 230 has frequently been referred to as a key law, which allowed the Internet to develop. Application and limits Section 230 has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Under section 230(c)(1), as identified above, an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action. In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service". The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue. The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue. Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intellectual property claims (§230(e)(2)). There is also no immunity from state laws that are consistent with though state criminal laws have been held preempted in cases such as Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna and Voicenet Communications, Inc. v. Corbett (agreeing that "the plain language of the CDA provides ... immunity from inconsistent state criminal laws"). What constitutes "publishing" under the CDA is somewhat narrowly defined by the courts. The Ninth Circuit held that "Publication involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content." Thus, the CDA does not provide immunity with respect to content that an interactive service provider creates or develops entirely by themselves. CDA immunity also does not bar