“as referring not merely to augmenting the content generally, but 'to materially contributing to its alleged unlawfulness. In other words, a website helps to develop unlawful content, and thus falls within the exception to section 230, if it contributes materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct.” Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1167-68. Here, as in Gonzalez: Plaintiffs do not allege that [Defendants] “materially ■ contributed]” in any way to 17 WL 4773366, at *13 (second alteration iñ original). Like in Gonzalez, Defendants’ “provision of neutral tools, including targeted advertising, does not equate to content development under section 230, because. . .the tools do not encourage the posting of unlawful or objectionable material.” Id.; cf. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d at 1165-67 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Google’s
holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony holding that the defendant engaged in content development outside the scope of the cdas immunity provision by creating a system that required users to disclose whether they were members of certain protected classes and allowed other users to screen housing applicants based on that information holding that printouts of government website allowing users to estimate potential military benefits based upon users assumptions about the future were inadmissible under section 908038 as they did not simply set forth the activities of a government agency holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury