Casey Newton

about what a podcast is.

Okay, well, as Taki says, a pleasant journey to you, sir.

Thank you very much, sir.

I'm opening up cross play.

I've been playing against Dan, my colleague at the New York Times.

Dan played his last turn.

Let's see who won.

It's so close, but I did win.

I do continue to identify as the Silicon Valley editor of The Verge, so I'm glad you feel the same way.

As you know, Nilay, for basically the past 20 years, companies have been able to use Section 230 as a shield, and whenever there is any remotely content-related challenge to any of these platforms in court, they just get dismissed out of hand.

The reason that these cases are bellwethers is that if they were successful, it would open up this new front for litigation, and these companies could no longer just automatically use Section 230 as a shield.

And that now indeed has happened, and we're expecting there will now be dozens more lawsuits proceeding along exactly these same lines.

So I think the Snapchat case was a really important precedent.

It's this case Lemon versus Snap.

Snapchat used to offer this filter where you could turn it on and take a video of yourself in your car, and it would show how fast you were going.

And plaintiffs successfully argued that this had created an incentive within the app for people to go really, really fast and do dangerous things.

And indeed, in this particular case, there was a dangerous crash.

So the reason that that was important

was all of a sudden the 230 shield isn't absolute, right?

There have already been a couple of minor exceptions for like, you know, you can't post about, the platforms have to remove like terrorism and CSAM.