There’s so much to unpack here. The *entire* New Mexico economy (in 2025) is ~$125bn. The *entire* state budget is only ~$11bn. So, these penalties would be roughly a fifth of the state’s economy and more than *double* the fiscal budget for 2026. Ludicrous. It’s reminiscent of Europe’s targeting of American tech firms. Except this actually exceeds any judgment under the DSA or DMA. If we criticize Europe for being anti-tech (we do and we should), New Mexico deserves at least the same ire. “But Meta is a big company, they can afford it.” Sure, okay. If they’re forced to maybe they can afford this. But no company can afford being perpetually hammered by nonsense penalties. If NM can secure 25bn, what can CA, TX, FL collect with their significantly larger populations? And this is far from hypothetical. States have started eyeing tech for these sort of judgments in recent years. And I’d be shocked if others aren’t watching this thinking they can line their coffers with similar suits. If so, we can kiss our tech and innovation dominance goodbye. AI supremacy? Energy innovation and infrastructure build out? Good luck. But that’s *just* the financial and policy absurdity. If you dig deeper, this litigation is riddled with First Amendment problems—as @TraceTheLaw explained, the majority of this case and the penalties centered around Meta’s alleged misstatements around how it moderates content. The Supreme Court made clear that states cannot meddle with content moderation decisions. Those choices are protected by the First Amendment. See Moody v. @NetChoice. And the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly. See @NRA v. Vullo. But that’s exactly what NM’s case does. They’re trying to get at content through the back door, pretending they can evade the First Amendment. It’s egregious. And I’m looking forward to Meta’s appeal.