Jason Calacanis

The thing that I'll note is that these trial lawyers, which I'm not a fan of either, have been trying, as Sacks said and as Freebrook said, to make these folks a target because there's so much money on the line.

And they've been batted back pretty successfully.

But this was the first time where they were able to navigate the Section 230 protections that Facebook and Google have typically used to protect themselves, because Google was a part of the LA lawsuit.

And they were able to go down the pathway of product liability language.

Now, to Friedberg's point, I think he's generally right.

I think it's my responsibility as a parent to take care of myself and my children.

But to the extent we don't change these product liability laws that are on the books, I think the door has been opened and a map has been drawn, which is this is how you navigate around Section 230 and you can get a decisive lawsuit in your favor against these large companies with enormous cash flows.

And so I expect that this will be a death by a thousand cuts kind of scenario where folks are just going to rally around this.

I don't think it's right, but I do think that that's the rational reaction to what just happened.

I mean, look, $6 million to an individual 20-year-old girl or $375 million.

These are huge numbers.

And the reality is that I think we've opened the floodgates.

I do think there should be a better response.

And I do think that parents should take a lot more responsibility.

But I do hope that these products allow us a kill switch for when our kids are under the ages of 16.

Frankly, I would love a kill switch under the age of 18.

And there has to be simpler ways to age validate.

You know, we used to work around this thing called COPPA compliance.

COPPA is bullshit.

It's a nothing burger.