YouSaid · the spoken record

Carrie Goldberg

lines on the record: 68
first: 2019-08-23
most recent: 2019-08-23
sittings or episodes: 1
sources: podcast

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Oh my god. No, you know, I've applied for the ombudsman job at Facebook, and I'm going to wait and see if Mark will give me that, like unfettered access to him to smack him every day. But we'll see. There should be a fact-finding. I know it sounds crazy, but I don't think we know enough, and I do think it's a lot because these companies have kept us in the dark about the difficulty, because it is so difficult, and they don't want to admit they don't have control of the platforms they created. But anyway, this has been great. I really appreciate you all from coming on, Carrie, Jeff, and Mike. Thank you so much for being on this. And we'll continue this discussion. We'll check back if there are anything does happen. I don't think anything will happen, but we'll check back at that going forward because I think it's a really important discussion of how we regulate these companies, how we legally deal with them, and how as a society we do. So thank you so much for coming on the show. Mike, I still love you, even though you saw me all the time. You can follow me. See, I brought you on. So you can follow me on Twitter at Cara Swisher, my executive producer, Eric Anderson, is at Eric America.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“I guess we'll just have to shut them all down. That's really what was going to happen. I do think you're right. They have, listen, I'm going to finish up on this. I think we need to, they absolutely still haven't gotten it. I think they really feel like you've getting a lot of victim-y statements from them and they're feeling very badly. And again, I know you don't want to stress the money, but they got all the money and they are the richest people on earth now on earth, like unprecedented ever. And they still don't have responsibility. I think it is a question of what are you stepping up and being more transparent. I think Jeff is 100% correct. They are completely opaque because most cases they're incompetent. That's really what you find when you start to peel back the layers is they haven't been thoughtless and careless. And so I think one of the things is that they're going to have to pay for that. And unfortunately, it's got...”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“If I could wave it and just get people to actually understand how to properly apply liability and also to actually understand how much is actually being done and how difficult the choices are in terms of content moderation. If I could make everyone work on a trust and safety team for a week and begin to get a sense of how much effort is actually put into these things and how impossible it is to get it right on a consistent basis. We did at one of these content moderation conferences, we ran a sort of game where we had everyone in the audience try and deal with eight different content moderation cases and they got to vote on their phones and this was a conference of content moderation experts and we could not get agreement from them on how to deal with any of the eight case studies that we brought up. These are really difficult things and people think that it's easy that it's black and white and that the choices that everyone should make are really obvious. But what's obvious to you”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Of course, of course. Well, I think the number of cases that we see that still deal with 230 suggest that plenty of lawyers will take them. I mean, right now we're dealing with a bunch of Russian trolls who are suing Facebook using a big law firm. And they got that case tossed on 230 and they just filed an amended complaint and they're still trying and it's complete nonsense. But in certain cases those cases would be filed. But if I had a magic wand, honestly,”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“No, I mean, I think this isn't an issue of everyone's going to flood the courts because we lawyers don't want to take cases that are where we can't prove our case. It's really expensive. I've spent over three quarters of a million dollars of attorney time on Herrick v. Grinder. These are expensive cases that Big Law doesn't want these cases because their clients are big tech. So it's people like me”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“I think we need to stop seeing this as an issue of content moderation or speech and see Section 230 as a restriction on access to justice. And it's a restriction on us as individuals being unable to hold accountable companies that harm us.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Well, so I mean, there's a good example. We have a lot of very big cybersecurity national security challenges. And last year in the defense authorization bill, there was the creation of the Cyber Solarium Commission, which has some amazing former national security officials who are appointed by both the majority and minority in Congress From, I think, the White House also appoints them, but you get a really good substantive panel of people who are as non-partisan as you could get for a congressional commission that can gather facts and make recommendations. I think that's what we really need right now.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And I think we need this incredibly important, the future of not just Section 230, but how we deal with platforms and online speech. And we really need much better analysis and much better fact driving this debate. And we don't have that right now. And if there's a way other than a commission, that's great, but I think we need something that actually really drives this analysis better than it is.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“So to end, I think you're absolutely right. I think it becomes an international issue. I think typically the U.S. government doesn't react to anything and doesn't act or acts very slowly. And in this case, the gulf that Jeff was talking about is so vast between the sides and what they think should be done and how they interpret Section 230 is really quite, you know, it's an astonishing discussion to have with Republicans and Democrats because they're talking about two different things. Many of us are simply talking about taking more responsibility given how big and important these companies are and how much chaos they've created. And you're right, it is a reaction to gun violence or chaos, but they go hand in hand in a lot of ways. So let me finish up by asking each of you really briefly, what would you do if you could wave a wand, Jeff, what would you do?”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And in this case, like a punishment about gun violence. I'm not even sure how those two things are directly related. And I think there are First Amendment and Second Amendment issues potentially combined in one, which would be lots of fun for the Supreme Court. Should it ever actually go anywhere? I think the more realistic thing that's going to happen are two things. One, that the courts will continue to look at these things. And in really egregious cases, they will find reasons good or bad to sort of chip away around the edges at 230 and we'll sort of reach a sort of consensus on it. On the other side, on the legislative side, I do think that there will continue to be attempts. to some extent a trial balloon and I think we'll see similar attempts around other things terrorist related content is one opioid”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Of the third parties on the platforms and the California courts ruled on the side of, in this case, it was Santa Monica. It was the city and said that it's not really speech because it's transactions. I have problems with that decision. I think it's a whole other area and probably a whole other podcast between speech and expression and kind of where that line is. But I think to that point, the courts are weighing in and they're sort of chipping away at it and they're trying to make issues of it. Where I get worried is on the legislative side. And while there aren't much in the way of like democratic proposals, Better O'Rourke just put out his way of dealing with gun violence, which included dismantling Section 230. And it strikes me that attacking Section 230 has sort of become this catch-all for like, we don't like something about big tech and therefore we're going to pull away Section 230. It's just sort of like a stick, just sort of a punishment.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“So Airbnb was a bunch of different cities that put in place regulations around Airbnb and the similar companies about short-term rentals. And some of them have required Airbnb to police the rentals. And Airbnb made an argument that that violated 230 because they would be policing the speech.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Well, I think the courts have been. I mean, we have two decades worth of jurisprudence on Section 230, and they have chipped away at it, frankly. I mean, the roommates case was first, but there are other ones, you know, internet brands. The cases against Airbnb recently that have chipped away at basically saying transactions are not covered by 230. There are a number of other cases as well. Explain.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“and why it should be applied to products liability and why this entire industry should be outside the scope of the courts and whether this is an affirmative defense or if companies don't even have to bother pleading it. I still have hope that this could be judicially handled. Right. At the Supreme Court level. Right. I mean, I know that they only... Choose like 80 out of every 8,000 a year petitions, but this is an important issue. They've never ruled on it. It's probably a reason they've never ruled. Right. It's causing so much chaos, and this case is booted up for them. So the court should be deciding this on some level. That's my first choice. That's your first choice. Second choice?”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Made the internet so valuable and important. And moving away from that really takes away a lot of the value. And so I worry about that. I think that, as Carrie said, in cases where you can show that it was the platform themselves that caused the problem, that was the responsible party, that they should face liability for that. And for that case, if they have insurance, then great.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Situations. It's only when the problem is a third party content. Now what 230 does is it sort of has procedural benefits in terms of being able to get rid of a bunch of frivolous cases much faster. And again, part of the issues that everyone targets companies because they think the companies have the biggest wallets and maybe they do. But if you're targeting the wrong party, that's an issue. So again, I think 230 is super important. I think that changing it would have massive consequences for the way the internet works. And in particular, for the way that smaller platforms operate and the amount of speech that they allow and the amount of conversation that they allow, which I think would be a big loss. I think we would move more towards kind of a broadcast medium rather than a conversational communications medium, which is what I think.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“You know, I think there are a few things. I mean, I think to some extent, perhaps surprisingly, in some ways, I agree with Carrie. I talked earlier about the roommates case. And in the roommates case, they made the distinction of what is the platform actually responsible for versus what is the third party responsible for. And if it's a case where you can show definitively that it was the platform that caused the problem and not the user, then there is liability. It's pretty clear that there will be liability for the platform and they're not immune to any of those.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“You know, I need clients to stay in business. I love my clients. I have pride in being a good lawyer to my clients, but I still have liability insurance in case something accidentally happens. And, you know, these companies shouldn't be treated any differently. And we're not talking about the content moderation when we're talking about which situations could create a lawsuit because you still have to meet the thresholds. Okay, so Mike, how would you do that? And then we're going to get to the next section where we're talking about where it's going. How would you protect that against that? What's wrong with just having more liability insurance? You obviously don't want to get rid of it at all. But what about that idea?”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Serves a purpose. You know, I think with the publication of mass killings, I don't know even how that would fall into a tort law. It's really unfortunate that a shooting could stay online. But again, I don't see how the platform would be liable for not removing it because you still have to show that the platform caused the harm and you have to show the damage to the victims. And it would be quite traumatizing to watch the video, but that's not going to rise to the level of something that is suable over because the standard's really, really high. And I mean, I own a business and I have insurance. I mean, I think all we're talking about is a new insurance market that these platforms are going to have to buy. I mean, we all have liability insurance. And I don't act like an asshole to my clients because”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Carrie, how do you get to that consensus from your perspective? I mean, I'm really far the extreme. You want to get rid of it. I mean, I'm not, what would you do with it? Just get rid of it. I would get rid of it. I mean, tort law.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Almost every moderation decision that you make is going to piss off a lot of people. If you decide to moderate or not to moderate. And I mean, there are some cases where people would all agree, but at least in what I've been writing about, I get some people who say, oh no, they should take it down or leave it up. I'm really struggling with how you reconcile with satisfying all of these different sides. And I think we need a better consensus first.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“I don't think the shooting is a tough decision. I think there should be every effort to take that sort of video down. People disagree with me on that and say there might be a newsworthy reasons. I don't think so. I think for the Nancy Pelosi video, there was some argument it's become part of the public discourse satire. I would disagree with that just because in the impact that it's had. The problem is that there wasn't enough explanation as to what the decision making process was and there might not necessarily be the consistency there that's necessary to really inform why are they making these sorts of decisions. So that's really where I get back to the transparency that's necessary. And one really important point is”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“We do agree on that part, but I will not let them off for being thoughtless, lazy, and careless. And they literally don't care. They're the richest people on earth. But let's go. Jeff, let's talk about the idea of, let's get into the concept of things that happen on their platforms that are truly dangerous, like the shooter in New Zealand and not putting enough things in place.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Historically, there's an argument that they did a really bad job and they didn't take it nearly seriously enough. I completely agree with that. But I don't think that's true anymore, and I don't think that changing the law changes anything on that front.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Well, I wouldn't say never. I mean, if you talk to them and you go over the history of what happened, I agree. They were slow, they were bad, they're still bad at it, but they're getting better. And part of it is because of the public pressure, and part of it is because they're able to experiment and they're able to take different approaches and try different things. And again, it's important that 230 helps all of these different sides. Everyone focuses on the Facebooks and the Twitters of the world, but there's also Wikipedia, there's GitHub, there's smaller sites like mine. There's all different kinds of sites. And we would have a very, very different internet if there's liability for those things. You have a situation where you have the larger companies who might be able to deal with the legal fight. I can't hire 10,000 people to moderate my comments. You know, right now we're not big enough that we would need that. But the idea that this is some sort of special gift to companies who are completely ignoring any responsibility, I just don't think that's true”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“I do want to press you is the idea. I think you miss me. I do not want to get rid of 230. I want them to understand what a privilege it is, that we think it's a privilege and that they really do abrogate their responsibility almost continually and at the same time collecting all the money. Like they don't like they get all the money and don't do any of the work. And I think I want to get into some of the other things, but go ahead, sorry.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And I understand that a lot of platforms have decided to do that. But in our case, I mean, our comments are part of what makes dirt. We very much focus on sort of building a community around the site, and we can only do that because of 230.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Interesting, I got rid of comments, as you know, largely because they weren't adding, I didn't do them because I was worried about being sued. I do it because they were not added to them. But in my case,”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“The scariest content, I guess, that we got sued over was in comments. And we got that dismissed because of Section 230. If that were changed in some way, you know, that would put me at much greater risk. And, you know, I don't know if I would operate the business in the same way at all. I don't know that I would have comments if I didn't have those protections.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“in that right direction that's enabled in part by 230 being there allowing them to experiment and figure out what's best there are I think we all agree there are some bad players out there but what we're seeing again is that societal pressure is making that harder and harder for that to exist you know that we haven't talked about Cloudflare and what it did recently with 8CAN but that was a decision that they made so HN is finding it harder and harder to exist because basically society wide basis a lot of people have determined that maybe that's the kind of site that shouldn't exist but again these are things that are only enabled because 230 is there to allow the companies to make those decisions and to experiment and to take different approaches and so much of the 230 discussion is so focused on these larger companies yet 230 protects me I'm a small publisher I got sued not too long ago for defamation and the work”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“But part of the reason why we do that is because we have Section 230, right? I mean, part of the reason why we can moderate comments on Tector in the first place is because we have Section 230. Without it, we'd be risking a lot more liability. And the examples that have been given, Jeff talked about Pinterest and what they've done, you talked about Reddit and what they've done, Carrie talked about Pornhub, what they've done. All of them are doing different things. The reason they can do different things and the reason they can take different approaches is because they have 230 and they have that ability to experiment and to take different approaches. And what happens is that business and societal pressure have pressured most of these companies to do as much as they can in the right direction. And things like you reporting wherever you report and hitting hard on large internet companies has also, despite what you said, has pushed them in the right direction, perhaps not far enough. I think actually I agree, not far enough, but pushing them farther and farther.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“At all. So, Mike, talk about that because there are people that act. What is wrong with having a business? Like, you have that. You run TechDirt, I run Recode. When I get responses, we act. We immediately act, actually. And because as a publisher, which we are, I'm concerned about being sued. I'm concerned about if I did something not being wrong, that's different. But actually, libel is a very complicated thing in this country. It's different in Britain and everywhere and different places. But I'm concerned. And we do act and we do make choices. I think was what I was talking about is they refused to make choices. And you're worried about the fact that they can make choices at all. But we do that every day.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And so that to me is a great actor in terms of moderating the content. They'll take the victim's word for it and respond quickly. You know, on the other side of that is platforms like 8chen, like 4chan, where there's really nowhere to even respond to requests.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“It's uploaded by third party content providers. And a lot of my clients are just like, I want to get that off the internet. They're not all, I want to sue the F out of this tech company. In fact, it's very, very rare that because you have to actually show a harm and show that it was... By the platform as opposed to the individual. So I don't feel that. Ordinary sort of defamation and content that would be moderated. I don't feel like those are going to ever lead to cases. I mean, you have to have a real harm. I mean, that's what our system's for. Getting back to Pornhov. They will remove content. They don't require that show a sign saying that they are the victim of revenge porn if material's up there. They're very victim-friendly. They recognize that they're not really in the business of non-consensual porn”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“So, I'm dealing with individuals who are the victims of revenge porn or stalking, and it's always facilitated through something. And yeah, I mean, I have certain relationships with different people, and you might be surprised to learn that porn hub is one of the most responsive players in the cases that, I mean, so a lot of my clients. Pornhub is a...”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“There are differences, or there are people sort of popping up that it's not going to satisfy everyone, but they do act as if they have responsibility for this. Sure. And I actually want to pick up on something that Mike said, which is that these platforms shouldn't be in charge of solving societal problems, is what I think he said. I feel that if they've created the problem, then yes, they do need to be in charge of the solution. And I think one thing that we have to keep grasping is just how exceptional it is to have an industry that's basically beyond the reach of our courts. There's a lot of comparisons. Right. Well, I mean, they're not beyond the reach of our.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Yeah, one of the things I just did an interview with Steve Huffman from Reddit, which has been sort of plagued by problems. You know, they had a lot of stuff around racial slurs. And they just recently put them on Time Out, the Donald, which has been a controversial section of Reddit, but it's people that like Donald Trump and want to talk about it. And they put them on close to a permanent ban. And I think that's exactly where it's going because the moderators, in their case, they're dealing with the massive amount that Mike was talking about was to make the moderators run things. And then they monitor the monitors, essentially. And I think that probably works for a smaller company. But they've been very, he's been very upfront about the idea that they could ban the Donald if the behavior. He said if the behavior at the physical rallies manifest online, we'll be banning them, which means they'll be banning them, I think. And so they put them on quarantine. I think that's the word they use. But they're being much more transparent. And there's a site that really had a lot of problems, I think, and got a lot in the news. So when you're talking about this, Carrie.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“It should not be that way. They're changing, but until recently, oh, we're not going to talk about this, and they're starting to. There have been conferences, but they need to do a much better job. I don't see how Section 230 survives this.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“There are platforms like Grindr and Carrie's case, which clearly falls on the opposite side of the spectrum as Pinterest in terms of responsibility. And so you have a pretty wide range. And the point that I make to the platforms whenever I talk with any tech executives about 230, I say, you know, Section 230 is not a constitutional right. There's some overlap. But if you don't justify why we have this, We're not going to have it anymore. And they react in different ways. I mean, I think the big problem is they're not transparent. I'm at the Naval Academy and so only part of my work deals with Section 230. I also do a lot of cybersecurity and national security work. And it is easier to get information from the NSA than it is from some of these big tech companies.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Where some users were posting some pro eating disorder posts on Pinterest. So they actually worked with the National Eating Disorders Association to help figure out what are the keywords that would flag content to be able to post warnings and do other things to help reduce the harm. That is exactly what we need to be seeing more of the platforms doing. We're not seeing it enough. I think we have a few different categories. We have the big massive YouTube Twitter Facebook, which is what when there's a lot of Section 230 debates, that's when people say the platforms, they refer to them. But there are other platforms.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“So, yeah, I'm glad that you're asking about the different companies because they do act very differently. And there are some companies that have had some really thoughtful moderation practices. I look at Pinterest, for example. They had a problem.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Use almost any of them that these companies are the public square when in fact they are the privately owned squares that have become the public squares but they still aren't the public squares so they don't have the responsibility that public entities do and that the First Amendment it doesn't say Twitter shall make no law around freedom of speech. It says the Congress shall make no law. So talk a little bit about each of the companies and where we find ourselves with them because they have different ways of dealing with this.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Oh my goodness. All right. So I think you might be accurate that 10 years ago these companies didn't really consider these things that carefully. And if you look at the history and Kate Klonik has this great Harvard Law Review piece called The New Governors that I really recommend people read. It sort of goes through the history of content moderation on these different platforms”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Reparation that you can do because they've got this fig leaf that they've got constantly that they constantly refer to. So talk, and I do think that it's at risk to be able to sue them indiscriminately. I do think it's a risk to be able to have them not protected and not do their job of moderation, but they don't do their job of moderation or protect them, not just moderation, but their products themselves. So, talk about your pace so you can get your moan and the sun attacking poor Karis wisher.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“I mean, right, right. So, Mike, talk a little bit about this piece you wrote about me, which you got completely wrong, but let's go ahead. That's okay. This is something that you and I go. I am often talking about responsibility of products, that the products don't work as promised, they don't work as made, and there's no...”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And Grider didn't even have to serve an answer. We got thrown out of court right at the pleading stage. And so this was an access to justice issue. And Matthew continued to get these visitors. And I think we can all agree. That's a serious harm. This isn't just somebody being called a bitch on Twitter.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And so our case had nothing to do with content. We're like, you have a defective product. This isn't a publication tour. We're not suing for any words that Matthew's ex-boyfriend was using. We didn't even know what they were. We couldn't even find all these profiles. We didn't know what the direct messages were saying that was directing users.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“Yeah, with geolocating functions. That sends people to one another. It's an arithmetic certainty that sometimes it's going to be used by predators, by stalkers, by rapists, and it's completely negligent for them not to have designed that into their product. So, this was a product liability issue. And when we talk about Section 230 cases, we're actually talking about cases where somebody has sued a tech company and then they're supposed to affirmatively plead. That Section 230 protects them. So you're talking about Section 230.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“And in court, their lawyer said that they didn't have the technical ability to identify and exclude a user, which to us was just this red flag. Okay, even on their terms of service, they say that they have the right to exclude anybody. And that they will do that. And yet, they just conceded that they didn't actually design into their product the ability. If you've created a dating app that is built on facilitating offline in-person content physical.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
“I mean, and they were led to believe that he had rape fantasies, that he had drugs to share. He would go into the stair, you know, leave his apartment, they'd be waiting for him in the stairwell. They would follow him into the bathroom at work. It was nonstop As many as 23 people per day. And so he did what we all do when you're in that kind of crisis. He reported it to the cops 12 times. He got a restraining order against his ex and nothing helped. He flagged the accounts 50 times and had he was begging Grindr to help him. And at that point, Grinder was the one exclusively in control of this issue. They had The ability to stop it for him. And when they didn't, we took them to court and demanded that they exclude this user.”
2019-08-23 · Decoder with Nilay Patel · Recode Decode: CDA 230 · IDENTIFIED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT