"THIS IS DISGUSTING MATERIAL!!" *in the same breath* "COME TAKE A LOOK!!"

“DaD gEt a LoAd Of ThIs”

Even though the democrats and republicans are united against section 230, they are united for the opposite reasons lol.

‘Take a look at this disgusting material’ I would but it’s still November 30th 🤷‍♂️

"Take a look at this disgusting material." Me: "Yes sir."

“Disgusting material” = any position other than missionary

f in the chat for mathew's privacy

Hmm, yes. *Execute Rule 34*

"Come by my desk and look at this disgusting material" - Professors at my every assignment review.

“Dad get a load of this” “Dad builds own server”

There's no way that "horrible stuff" will ever change interpretation, nope.

Give grindr users verification.... simple

Dad... Get a *load* of this 😏

Dude Grindr is high key scary

Dad, get a *LOAD* of this

Grindr could just force its users to verify the same way Tinder does verifications now, to protect their users.

3:25 I thought they were going to say “Bill Clinton,” which would’ve been much funnier considering his general nature.

Senator Exon really acting like he hasn't seen the whole book👀

Can't he sue the impersonator? Revoking 230 is going to lead us to needing Social Security just to use a web browser. Can't trust these companies with that info either.

Oh Vox, you sure do know how to get us to click on your videos.

But I'm so confused by this because it's not like America owns the internet so what do these companies do in other countries??

2:34 - 2:48 In a different context it'd sound like they just want to control the future generation.

"Come by my desk and look at this disgusting material" buddy you're an innocent soul, you've just barely scraped the electrons of the surface

It's the last day of NNN, did you plan this? You want us all to lose, don't you? Well you won't make me so HA

Why does the guy need to sue Grindr instead of just suing the guy harassing him?

and here I was expecting a video on Rule 34 :(

“Everybody should have the right to sue,” the lawyer said.

‘’wHaT aRE YoU DOinG StEPbrO0o?¿?!!’’

It needs to be: if you don’t use the “sword” you can’t have the “shield”.

"Come by my desk and look at this disgusting material" - yeah I'll bet $1000 that he's "enjoying himself" to it every day

5:40 So wait, why aren't they suing the ex-boyfriend? Where can read more about this story? That dude needs to go to prison.

Why that guy didn't sue his ex? I am not defending companie that neglected this case, but it's just wierd. The programm is ok, his ex is not

"Company" and "In good faith" in the same sentence 😂😂😂

1:26 “it’s really cool” followed by cyber prom magazine

We need more Vox × Retro Report. Yaaaaa my 2 fav internet shows.

I think someone should charge Erik's ex boyfriend, like we can get to Grinder later

I never thought i would see a video about this

Just realized that AOL and America Online are the same thing

Hey, great story! I’m proud of your reporting in this story. It came across as non-partisan and erstwhile in trying to explore an issue without pushing a political agenda. That’s the type of journalism that helps us all enter into meaningful and fruitful conversations that can change things for the better. Thank you :-) Keep moving this way, make America News great again, ;-)

Can the guy not sue his ex-boyfriend?

Sue the PEOPLE doing the harmful posts instead of the companies allowing those posts edit: To those mentioning anonymity the solution is relatively easy, you can use court orders to force companies to give you information on a given user. That way anonymity is protected until a judge considers it is relevant for an investigation Of course it's not a perfect solution, there are tons of corner cases where this doesn't work, but i think that in most cases this would be the best way to go

Freedom of speech does not mean you are exempt from the consequences of your actions. I don't think we should limit people's freedom, but people shouldn't be allowed to post defamatory or harmful content without being held accountable. It's just common sense.

Remove section 230 and suddenly every web app requires a subscription fee and ads

Section 230 is the reason you can be anonymous on the internet. Change that and sooner than you imagine you have to log into every site with a verified form of ID, because the website will want to sue you if you post anything controversial and it becomes problematic for the website. No, it does not need to be something ethically wrong: you could be posting a video of someone being murdered by the police as a form of protest and the website could come after you because the police dept sued for frivolous reasons. Killing section 230 is asinine, as many comments below point out. It is good as it is, and making it a political battleground does not help anyone, neither left nor right, so stop it.

I was showing my dad something on phone, and I got this notification. . . . . . . . . . I know I know... I'm dead

Having this Vox doc as an intro to addressing this problem as part of a weekly class in the schools would sort out all these problems in several years, at most, one generation.

"Dad, get a load of this " lol

You guys lost me at the part where someone was harassing that guy using grindr, but the lawyer went after grinder instead of the person.

“Take a look at this disgusting material” I definitely will

It shouldve been called: *section 69*

Cant imagine just 25 years ago humans were still so primitive haha, we still are but the internet has changed us completely

Just saying... before watching this.... what the f- Edit: never mind, it’s actually pretty reasonable

The guy with the revengeful boyfrind, did he also sue the boyfriend? Bc I understand how complex suing the company is but the guy, c'mon

Who decides and defines what is 'decent' and what is not?

I am so excited to see you all collabing with Retro Report!!! It's a dream come true. I hope there is more

“Dad, get a load of this!” Ya.. he probably has

1:08 Drew Gooden is that u

Me, an intellectual: you mean rule 34?

As a programmer I will add this: there is immense difficulty in detecting unwanted content and requires sizable investments to maintain and keep up to date. Manual reports of content also cost an extremely large amount to pay physical content moderators. Very difficult problem.

Good job presenting the varying opinions and perspectives on how to approach changes to the law!

1:15 looks like someone watched drew's video

7:34 I'll miss reddit if sec 230 gets revoked

Let's talk about personal responsibility. Stop blaming all of these companies if you don't like it don't use it.

The production of this video is amazing. The motion graphics and general look and feel of each scene is awesome

I don’t think that daughter’s dad is her biological dad

Companies shouldn’t have to be liable for everything that is posted (it’s impossible), but they should be liable for what they consciously choose to leave something posted when they shouldn’t.

Vox knew what they were doing posting this on November 30th.

8:39 “what we need are changes that are carefully tailored and address a particular harm” Luckily the government is known for its ability to make nuanced and sensible changes...wait...oh god 🤦‍♂️

I love how they reach out to experts when they do videos like that!

I’m sure Exon’s children and himself viewed the binder more than once

Matthew: Gets 20 people a day showing up at his workplace DTF. Me: Sends 50 messages on dating app and gets no reply.

The real problem is these internet companies have monopolies. if there was competition in the market the whole 230 debate would be moot

Ironic uploading this on the 30th of November

We need this rule. Both sides of the political spectrum have a point, but imagine the government enforcing what was to be allowed on a site

What I do not understand is what stops the individuals from just suing the person responsible for posting the content. Identity theft is a big crime

"Dad, get a load of this" i'm sure he has

I personally want everything to be as open as possible. Maybe lawsuits in certain times should also be. ISP should not be able to weld the sword. Companies should get a little less sword and shield. The one thing that I think would be the worse outcome is if the internet (as a whole) becomes more censored. What happens to companies is slightly different.

6:56 I mean his ex was the one actually actively doing malicious stuff. Why did he sue Grindr instead of suing his ex?

Uhhhhh... why couldn't the vengeful ex-boyfriend be held accountable? The company should also be trying to stop abuse of it's system, but you totally left out the logical first step of legal action against the person actually comitting the abuse.

This is a retro report collab!! I used to love watching retro report!

yeah lets give Americans the ability to sue companies i am sure the won't abuse it... Are you kidding me!!! Have you been to USA? why not just make it illegal to impersonate other people?

Anyone whose played rust before is having a panic attack watching this video.

The fact that we haven't found solution to ban such content and help the ones who actually are getting troubled for no reason yet is ridiculous to see, and we talk about ai and cashless transactions.

The fact that the guy got harassed trough a dating app and then he sues the app company is quite ridiculous. It is like being stabbed by a knife and then i will sue the company which made the knife. Nobody even sues gun or cigarette companies for anything, why should the internet be any different? In the first place the person is liable for his actions, the app company is liable only for their inaction. It would be like selling a gun to a person who says i want to shoot people there and there!

3:13....yall using the keylock sound from Rust I'd know that sound anywhere

1:18 I think Bill Gate's glasses are a little too big for him.

Ok so like i dont think that if someone is slandering or harassing someone online and thats affecting them legitimately in the real world then, they should be able to sue the person not the company involved, they are giving everyone a platform and just cause someones harassing someone else on their site doesnt mean they are to blame for not doing anything about it. If its that bad take the other dude into court.

Did you interview a lawyer about revoking section 230? Of course, she'll want to revoke it! It's extra lawsuits (and more money) for her!

Yeah, just imagine how some category of people will sue big companies for being not politically correct

Where's the repercussions for the individuals putting up the harmful content?

The editing is on point!!

Suing a company because of what a user said is like suing the government because of something you heard in a park. You're suing the wrong entity. Leave section 230.

1:23 “Now I have gotten on the internet, I would rather be on my computer than just doing about anything” yeah you would kiddo with those ‘disgusting materials’ on the internet lol

So instead of punishing someone who drew a swastica on a wall. They want to punish the wall ower?

I think the war on §230 is really similar on the scandal of article 13, another legal movement around the Communications Decency Act. Europe tried to entirely scrap §230 and make companies fully liable for the content of the internet. People were saying that it was a disaster because, if that happens, companies would have to implement extremely agressive filters that take down copyright infractors on the spot, before it is even uploaded. And that's all. The problem was not the law, but how the law would.make the companies react. And it is because the law is only as big as the ones affected by it enforce it, or get it enforced. The problem with War on §230 is the same, much like we could've never known how companies would use their rights back when §230 was enacted, now we cannot know exactly what effects any reenactment of §230 could have in our lives. This section has helped shape the internet as we know it, and any change, as small as it is, has the potential to have tremendous consequences on the internet as a whole, as the group of 100 companies that control maybe 98% of the entirety of the surface and the deep web, are forced to change their rules and rethink their models to see what other exploits they can use, and what they can no longer use, what new methods they use, what new tools are developed. This thing has become so big that any change could have deeply changing consequences, because of the unpredictability of the different companies at play

The lawyers of those defamation cases should plead “clear and present danger”. This limits freedom of speech forcing companies to remove the ads.

We call it instegram today🤦‍♀️

Oh geez this is the wrong video to be early for lol

the rust code lock sound made me jump

I agree that you need to be very careful when changing this law.