Latest / Question Everything / The Scammers and Smut that Sparked the Modern Internet

Transcript

The Scammers and Smut that Sparked the Modern Internet · Question Everything

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: I've got news.
• 0:02
  Speaker 2: I know a bunch of you have been tracking this,
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: but the other day it happened. Section 230, the law
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: that makes it so websites and online platforms aren't liable
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: for most of what other people post on them, a
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: law I've been arguing here that we should change, it
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: finally got some airtime in Congress. And lawmakers, they really
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: laid into it.
• 0:22
  Speaker 3: I strongly believe that Section 230 has long outlived its use,
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: and it is now a real vessel for evil. that
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: needs to come to an end.
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: That's Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat. He and other senators
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: from both parties declared at a hearing about children's online
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: safety last week that they want to move a bill
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: forward to repeal Section 230. They even put a.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Timeline on it.
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: They want to bring it forward in time for the
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: 30th anniversary of Section 230's passage, which is this coming February.
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: We'll keep tracking developments, of course. It's good timing because
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: today on the show, We look at that 30 year
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: history of Section 230 to see.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: How we got here.
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: I've been trying to put myself back in the headspace
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: of the early 90s to the early days of the Internet,
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: because if you're a regular listener here, you'll know I'm
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: trying to figure out how we ended up here in
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: a country where so many people don't trust each other anymore,
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: where we can't agree on what's real or what's fake.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: The internet didn't create all these problems, but it's become
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: a major catalyst for them. Lies travel faster than facts.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: Outrage gets rewarded by powerful algorithms that train us with
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: hits of dopamine. Huge private corporations decide which voices get
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: amplified and which ones get drowned out. Nearly half of
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: young people say they wish social media had never been invented.
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: So if you really want to understand why things feel
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: so stuck and so out of control at once, it's
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: helpful to go back to the beginning. to the moment
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: when the rules were set. Check out this great clip
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: I came across from the Today Show from 1994, when
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: the ability to get on the internet from your home
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: was brand spanking new. It's Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: Gumbel had just read his first email.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Address on air.
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: That little mark with the A and then the ring
• 2:16
  Speaker 4: around it. See, that's what I said.
• 2:18
  Speaker 3: Katie said she thought it was about.
• 2:22
  Speaker 5: But I'd never heard it said.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: I'd always seen the mark, but never heard it said.
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: And then it sounded stupid when I said it. Violence
• 2:29
  Speaker 4: at NBC.
• 2:31
  Speaker 5: Well, what Allison should know.
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: What is internet anyway?
• 2:35
  Speaker 6: Internet is that massive computer network. The one that's becoming
• 2:40
  Speaker 6: really big now.
• 2:42
  Speaker 4: What do you mean?
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: What do you write to it, like mail?
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: Allison, can you explain what internet is?
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: They have to get one of their producers to explain
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: it to them from offstage. It all seems so innocent,
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: even quaint, through the lens of time. I mean, no
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: one had any idea how the world was about to change.
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: Twitter wasn't even a glint in Jack Dorsey's eye. Mark
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: Zuckerberg and Sam Altman were probably playing with Legos.
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: So was I, to be fair. This was two years later.
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: Before Congress passed a law that would quietly but definitively
• 3:13
  Speaker 2: shape the internet, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: the law that made it so websites and platforms and
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: apps generally are not liable for what other people post
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: on them. This is the thing I've been banging the
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: drum on here on the show, revamping Section 230 so
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: we can hold internet companies accountable for bad behavior. But
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: there's a conflict I'm in the middle of. On the
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: one hand, Section 230 makes it really hard to hold
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: powerful tech companies accountable, even when they amplify lies or
• 3:43
  Speaker 2: deepfake pornography or other content that really hurts people, even
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: if it leads to violence. But on the other hand,
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: the law also helped create a wide open Internet full
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: of vigorous speech and debate where people can think freely,
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: argue loudly, criticize what they don't agree with, where important reporting,
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: the Me Too movement, can really make a mark. I
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: want to fix the problems, but I don't want an
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: internet where people are being censored left and right. And
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: a lot of people say this is why we shouldn't
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: touch Section 230. It's too risky. But I've held out
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: hope that there's got to be a way to reform
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: Section 230 that helps some of the big problems without
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: blowing up free speech on the internet. And the only
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: way I know how to figure that out is by
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: nerding out on the history of how the law came
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: about in the first place. That's one of the many
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: Section 230 rabbit holes I've been going down, and I'm
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: going to bring you down there with me today. What
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: were the lawmakers who passed Section 230.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: Trying to solve? How did they go about it?
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: Knowing that can help you figure out how you feel
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: about Section 230, whether we should change it, and if so, how?
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: This is Question Everything from KCRW and Placement Theory. I'm
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: Brian Reed. It turns out like many free speech fights
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: in America, the spawning of Section 230 comes down to sex.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: along with a funky legal ruling in Long Island that
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: involved a shady investment firm and a shady judge.
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: Stick around.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: The page turner of my summer, I'm not being cute,
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: it really was, was a book about Section 230. The
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: book about Section 230. There's only one that tells the
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: whole story of the law. It's by a guy named
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: Jeff Kossoff, a former journalist and a lawyer who's represented
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: tech companies, websites, and news outlets. Jeff took it upon
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: himself a few years back to methodically research this law
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: that's been so important to our modern age, and then
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: weave the story for all of us lay folk in
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: a really compelling way. The book's called The 26 Words
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: That Created the Internet, and I found it fascinating because
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: reading it, I felt like Section 230, this invisible force
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: that shapes our lives and The way we date and
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: get news and keep in touch with our families and
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: gossip and sell our old furniture and track 911 calls
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: in our neighborhoods and hunt for an apartment or for
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: a job or for sex. I felt like Jeff was
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: filling it in with colored dye, allowing me to see
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: it clearly for the first time. So I wanted to
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: invite him on to tell that story to you. I
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: think I saw somewhere that you have this party trick
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: where you can say the 26 words of Section 230
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: from memory.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Is that right?
• 6:29
  Speaker 4: No one really asks at parties. I think someone just
• 6:31
  Speaker 4: said that when they were interviewing me.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: Can you do it?
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: provided by another information content provider.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: Did you count the 26 words? Okay, well, what's important
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: is to hang on to this concept. Computer service providers, apps, websites,
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: social media companies, they can't be treated as publishers or
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: of the info that other people post on them. So
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: just keep that in mind. Jeff's a big deal in
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: the Section 230 world, by the way. And it is
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: a little niche world. Here he is testifying in Congress
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: about the law.
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: My goal is to help expand the public understanding of
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: Section 230, as Section 230 is responsible, more than any
• 7:16
  Speaker 4: other law, for the open internet that Americans know, love,
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: and hate.
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: He is the guy to talk to about Section 230,
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: the man people turn to when they want to learn
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: about this statute. What I learned from Jeff and his
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: book is that Section 230 arose in large part as
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: a result of this one court case in 1995. It
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: was a pretty small case. In retrospect, it could have
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: been a blip in history. But because of a perfect
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: storm of things that were going on in Congress, in
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: this new industry of the internet, and in the courts,
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: it ended up having a huge impact on the internet
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: we have today, and by extension on all of us.
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: Jeff explains this little case in 1995. It was a
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: defamation suit filed by a company called Stratton Oakmont.
• 8:03
  Speaker 4: So Stratton Oakmont is an investment firm that was based
• 8:06
  Speaker 4: in Long Island. It actually is the basis for the
• 8:11
  Speaker 4: firm that was portrayed in The Wolf of Wall Street. Gentlemen,
• 8:16
  Speaker 4: welcome back. To Stratton Oakmont. You schnooks will now be
• 8:21
  Speaker 4: targeting the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: Stratton Oakmont sued an internet company called Prodigy. Maybe some
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: of you over a certain age remember Prodigy. It was
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: one of the first companies that let people dial into
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: the internet from their homes, like AOL. Prodigy had chat
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: rooms and bulletin boards on different topics. It was created
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: by IBM and Sears. And they had that kind of
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: friendly mainstream consumer vibe. They were going for a kind
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: of wholesome, family-friendly, use the internet to improve your day-to-day
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: life kind of product. But on this one prodigy bulletin
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: board about investing.
• 8:57
  Speaker 4: Someone started posting claims about the president of Stratton Oakmont
• 9:03
  Speaker 4: claiming that he had engaged in fraudulent conduct.
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: Which, if you know the movie, the Wolf of Wall
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: Street guys were ultimately put in prison for financial crimes.
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: Stratton Oakmont's president said these claims of fraud... on Prodigy's
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: bulletin board were bullshit. That Prodigy was essentially publishing lies
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: by providing the message board for this online chatter. And
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: that Prodigy should.
• 9:26
  Speaker 4: Pay $ 200 million for defamation.
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: $ 200 million in 1995.
• 9:32
  Speaker 4: And so what Prodigy does is they ask the judge,
• 9:35
  Speaker 4: and this is in a state court on Long Island.
• 9:38
  Speaker 4: They ask the judge, we want you to declare that
• 9:42
  Speaker 4: we have the same protection that CompuShip has.
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: Four years earlier, in 1991, one of Prodigy's competitors, another
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: dial-up internet provider called CompuServe, had also been sued for
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: defamation for a statement someone had shared in one of
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: their forums. CompuServe had argued, we aren't a publisher. We're
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: just a distributor. We're not like a newspaper.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: We're a newsstand.
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: We can't be responsible for every little thing that our
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: hundreds of thousands of users post at all hours of
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: the day on our platform.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: That would be impossible.
• 10:16
  Speaker 2: We don't even know about the supposedly defamatory thing. someone
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: else said in our forum. CompuServe's argument was convincing to
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: the court, which decided CompuServe should not be held liable
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: for the allegedly defamatory statement published on their platform. The
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: judge dismissed the case. So four years later, when Stratton Oakmont,
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: Wolf of Wall Street, is suing Prodigy for $ 200 million
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: in their defamation lawsuit, Prodigy must be thinking we're in.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: Pretty solid footing.
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: They make the case to the judge and that the
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: suit shouldn't stand because they're just like CompuServe. They're not
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: a publisher. They were more like a distributor. But Jeff
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: says it didn't work.
• 10:57
  Speaker 4: The judge comes back with a ruling that really surprises
• 11:02
  Speaker 4: a lot of people because the judge declines Prodigy's request
• 11:07
  Speaker 4: and says, no, I am not going to treat you
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: as the distributor. I'm going to treat you as the
• 11:13
  Speaker 4: publisher and And he says, the reason that I'm going
• 11:16
  Speaker 4: to do this is because unlike CompuServe, you exercise editorial control.
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: The judge allows the case against Prodigy to move forward.
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: And his reasoning came down to Prodigy's MO, which was
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: very different from CompuServe's. CompuServe was a very hands-off, anything-goes
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: type of place. All sorts of content. If you could
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: get on the internet, you could pretty much post what
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: you wanted there. Prodigy, remember, was partly owned by Sears
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: and was trying to appeal to families. Their ads featured
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: kids and grandparents. The company didn't want obscene posts on
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: their platform. And they had moderators who took them down.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Prodigy blocked users if they broke its rules. They curated
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: their platform and made that part of their brand.
• 11:59
  Speaker 4: Prodigy wants to be family friendly. I had friends who
• 12:03
  Speaker 4: would do their homework using Prodigy because Prodigy had online encyclopedias.
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: And Prodigy was generally the service that parents felt more
• 12:11
  Speaker 4: comfortable using. letting their kids use. Does anyone out there
• 12:15
  Speaker 4: understand algebra? And Prodigy marketed that quite a bit. Is
• 12:18
  Speaker 4: that new.
• 12:19
  Speaker 7: Seafood chain as good as they say?
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: Does that new bestseller on investing have any good tips?
• 12:23
  Speaker 3: Is London a good place for a tenure?
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: This is one of Prodigy's TV commercials.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: If you've got questions and are looking for real answers
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: and opinions.
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: How do we tell our child there's another child on
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: the way?
• 12:35
  Speaker 7: Then you should connect to Prodigy and share the personal
• 12:38
  Speaker 7: experiences of over a million and a half people.
• 12:42
  Speaker 4: Prodigy, the network of active minds.
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: Prodigy's wholesome brand seemed to influence the Long Island judge,
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: who said in his ruling, basically, Prodigy, because you moderate
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: your platform, that's a way to make it family friendly.
• 12:57
  Speaker 4: Because of that, you are going to be just as
• 13:01
  Speaker 4: liable as the person who posted it. the content.
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: Prodigy and Stratton Oakmont ended up settling the case, but
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: the judge's ruling on this one motion that Prodigy had
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: filed got some attention because it sent a bit of
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: a convoluted message. If you're an internet company and you
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: try to make your platform safer, cleaner, like Prodigy did
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: by setting standards, hiring moderators, keeping things more kid-friendly, then
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: we're going to punish you essentially for by making it
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: easier for people to sue you. But if you don't
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: go through the trouble and expense to do that stuff,
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: like comp you serve, you can walk away scot-free. And
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: here's why the ruling mattered so much. Because it didn't
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: land in a vacuum. It came down right in the
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: middle of a moral panic about sex, kids, and the
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: internet that was engulfing lawmakers in Congress. Here's one particularly
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: devout senator making his case on the Hill.
• 13:58
  Speaker 7: Almighty God. Lord of all life, we praise you for
• 14:04
  Speaker 7: the advancements in computer communications that we enjoy in our time.
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: This all makes for a perfect storm, because at this
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: very moment, when the judge ruled against Prodigy, Congress was
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: locked in a fight over what the rules of the
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: Internet should be, who should set them, and how those
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: rules might affect free speech. And this is where we
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: get to the sex. In his book, Jeff tells the
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: story of Senator James Exxon, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: who was shocked by how much porn there was on
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: the newfangled World Wide Web.
• 14:36
  Speaker 7: Sadly, however, there are those who are littering this information
• 14:41
  Speaker 7: superhighway with obscene, indecent, and destructive pornography. Virtually, but virtuous.
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: Exxon and other senators were worried about kids being able
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: to access this stuff. So Senator Exxon proposed a bill
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: that would make it illegal, you could even go to jail,
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: to post indecent content many places online. It was called
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: the Communications Decency Act. Jeff says Senator Exxon really threw
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: himself behind the legislation.
• 15:13
  Speaker 4: He had what was known as his blue book, which
• 15:16
  Speaker 4: he carried around in the Senate and showed to other senators.
• 15:20
  Speaker 4: It was basically a blue binder with printouts of pornography
• 15:25
  Speaker 4: that he found on the internet to basically show how
• 15:28
  Speaker 4: concerned he was about this.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: Like actual porn printed out in black and white in
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: a blue book that a senator's like got tucked under
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: his arm and he's walking around the chamber showing other lawmakers.
• 15:40
  Speaker 4: Yes.
• 15:41
  Speaker 7: I have here what I refer to as a blue book.
• 15:45
  Speaker 7: When I have shown this to members on both sides
• 15:48
  Speaker 7: of the aisle, there has been shock registered obviously on
• 15:54
  Speaker 7: the face of my colleagues. I would hope that all
• 15:59
  Speaker 7: of my colleagues would, if they're interested, come by my
• 16:02
  Speaker 7: desk and take a look at this disgusting material.
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: The Blue Book worked. Exxon's proposal passed in the Senate.
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: In the House, though, Jeff says, it faced a tougher road.
• 16:18
  Speaker 4: In the House, which is a bit younger than the
• 16:21
  Speaker 4: Senate and a bit more tech-friendly, you have members of
• 16:25
  Speaker 4: both parties representing vehemently opposed to this legislation. Newt Gingrich,
• 16:31
  Speaker 4: who is the new Speaker of the House, he came
• 16:33
  Speaker 4: out very quickly and said, this is clearly unconstitutional. We
• 16:38
  Speaker 4: can't prohibit constitutionally protected speech.
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: Porn for, by, and about adults over 18 might be lewd,
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: but it's legal speech and protected by the First Amendment.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: It's not that representatives in the House weren't concerned about
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: kids accessing sexual content online. They were, But the House
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: lawmakers wanted to find a solution that didn't involve the
• 17:01
  Speaker 2: government censoring people, which is where the Prodigy case comes
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: back in. One of the best hopes for lawmakers who
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: were trying to keep smut away from kids on the
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: Internet while still allowing free speech would be for Internet
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: companies to step in and moderate their platforms, not because
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: the government was forcing them to necessarily, but because there
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: was a market for it, like what Prodigy was doing.
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: Lawmakers feared that the Prodigy ruling would make it a
• 17:31
  Speaker 2: lot harder to encourage tech platforms to moderate themselves because
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: the judge said since Prodigy was moderating its content, they
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: were essentially approving it and could therefore be held liable
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: for what people posted.
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: It was a conundrum.
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: Republican Congressman Chris Cox was one of the lawmakers leading
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: the charge to figure this out. In a speech years later,
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: he remembers the first time he learned about the Prodigy ruling.
• 17:55
  Speaker 5: Here I was one day, on my regular weekly commute
• 17:59
  Speaker 5: on a plane flight from California to Washington.
• 18:02
  Speaker 8: Reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about a
• 18:04
  Speaker 8: court case in New York that had created a very
• 18:08
  Speaker 8: dangerous legal precedent.
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: Cox recalls reading the judge's reasoning in the case alarmed.
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: Prodigy was wholesome, had banned harassment, bullying, obscene content, and
• 18:18
  Speaker 2: that's what got it in trouble?
• 18:20
  Speaker 5: Imagine if that were the law. We can all think
• 18:23
  Speaker 5: of what the perverse incentives would be in the future.
• 18:27
  Speaker 5: Online platforms would refuse to moderate even the most awful
• 18:31
  Speaker 5: content for fear of that liability. It was a prescription
• 18:34
  Speaker 5: for turning every online platform that's hosting user-created content into
• 18:39
  Speaker 5: a vulgar and dangerous place.
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: It was a nightmare scenario for Cox and other representatives.
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: Because again, at the same time, you had old Blue Book,
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: Senator James Exxon, gaining traction for his rules about what
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: people could post on the internet.
• 18:54
  Speaker 7: I'm not talking just about Playboy and Penthouse magazine. I'm
• 19:01
  Speaker 7: talking about the most hardcore perverse types of pornography.
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: So Chris Cox, the Republican from California, teamed up with
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: one of his colleagues, Representative Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon.
• 19:14
  Speaker 4: He's now a senator.
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: Jeff has interviewed them both.
• 19:17
  Speaker 4: They both came from districts that have a pretty large
• 19:21
  Speaker 4: tech presence. So Cox is from Orange County and Wyden
• 19:25
  Speaker 4: is from the Portland area. And they were friends and
• 19:29
  Speaker 4: they would have lunch together.
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: Cox and Wyden wanted to prevent rulings like the Prodigy one.
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: They wanted to encourage companies to be more civic minded
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: like Prodigy. Jeff also points out, importantly, that there were
• 19:40
  Speaker 2: economic motives at play, too.
• 19:42
  Speaker 4: The other goal that Cox and Leitman had was to
• 19:47
  Speaker 4: promote this new industry to prevent over-regulation of the internet.
• 19:54
  Speaker 4: And they wanted to not subject these new companies to
• 20:00
  Speaker 4: endless litigation for the vast amounts of user content that
• 20:05
  Speaker 4: are posted.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: What were they worried would happen?
• 20:08
  Speaker 4: Well, that the companies would get sued out of existence immediately.
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: So they wrote out a proposal on a yellow legal pad.
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: Cox scribbled the first version on one of his flights
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: from California to D.C. He shared it with Wyden, and
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: they landed on two key ideas. First, the now famous
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: 26 words that Jeff memorized.
• 20:27
  Speaker 4: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
• 20:30
  Speaker 4: be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
• 20:33
  Speaker 4: provided by another information content provider. Basically, what that means
• 20:38
  Speaker 4: is if you're, you know, an app, a website, you're
• 20:42
  Speaker 4: not treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
• 20:47
  Speaker 4: provided by another user, by a third party.
• 20:49
  Speaker 2: Again, you're not treated as the publisher or speaker, so
• 20:52
  Speaker 2: you can't be held responsible for what other users post.
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: Like the judge on Long Island said Prodigy could be.
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: That's the part of Section 230 that I'd say is
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: most well known. But there's another part of the law,
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: a lesser known one. That is longer than 26 words,
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: so I don't think Jeff has memorized it. It says,
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: as a platform on the internet.
• 21:09
  Speaker 4: You're also not civilly liable for any good faith efforts
• 21:14
  Speaker 4: to block access to or restrict any content that you
• 21:19
  Speaker 4: believe is lewd, lascivious, or otherwise objectionable. So what they're
• 21:25
  Speaker 4: saying is you're also going to get protection for good
• 21:28
  Speaker 4: faith decisions that you make as to whether to moderate content.
• 21:34
  Speaker 4: to block access.
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: This second provision is super important. So hang on to
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: it as we keep talking about Section 230. It was
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: meant to give companies on the internet protection that Prodigy
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: didn't have to allow companies to decide what they do
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: or don't want on their platforms. If a website designed
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: for children doesn't want pornography on it, that's their right.
• 21:55
  Speaker 2: They can make that call. The explicit goal of the
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: law is to encourage companies operating online to try and
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: be good citizens. to make judgments about what will make
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: for a safer, healthier internet, what will serve their users best,
• 22:08
  Speaker 2: and to moderate content accordingly. It's actually labeled in the
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: statute as a good Samaritan protection, though notably there's no
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: requirement for companies to be a good Samaritan. They get
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: protection from lawsuits either way. Cox and Wyden's colleagues in
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: the House get behind their proposal, and Section 230 is
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: inserted inside the Communications Decency Act, alongside Senator Exxon's rules.
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: As a sort of compromise.
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: Compared to the blue book of hardcore porn, Section 230
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: got very little public attention. It was as though Section
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: 230 was invisible, Jeff writes in his book. And with
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: that new version of the Communications Decency Act, on February 8, 1996,
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: with 81 votes in the Senate, a big majority in
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: the House, and a signature from President Bill Clinton.
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: Section 230 passes.
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: The Communications Decency Act had a very short life. The
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: same day it was signed into law, the ACLU sued
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: the government, saying that Senator Exxon's rules about online porn
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: were unconstitutional. The ACLU won. And in 1997, the Communications
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: Decency Act was struck down. Except for Section 230. That
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: part remained. Left there like a single ionic pillar, standing
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: strong amidst the ruins. still standing strong today. So if
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: you're trying to sort out where you're at on Section 230,
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: or even if you think you know where you're at
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: on it, check out this little coda. It's one of
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: the most surprising things I learned from Jeff's book, and
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's widely appreciated, even by people who
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: know this story. In most retellings of Section 230's origin,
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: the ruling against Prodigy is described as a moment of alarm,
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: even panic. the kind of decision lawmakers believe they needed
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: to respond to urgently. That's how one of the law's authors,
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: Congressman Chris Cox, described that moment in a speech years later.
• 24:09
  Speaker 8: Here I was reading an article in the Wall Street
• 24:12
  Speaker 8: Journal about a court case in New York that had
• 24:15
  Speaker 8: created a very dangerous legal precedent.
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: But Jeff points out something crucial. The prodigy ruling was
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: not a binding legal precedent. It was a ruling on
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: a single motion in a low-level New York state court,
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: not even a state appellate court. not a federal court.
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: No one besides the parties in that one New York
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: courtroom had to abide by this judge's ruling.
• 24:37
  Speaker 4: This is one state court judge on Long Island who
• 24:41
  Speaker 4: had a bit of a spotty record, this judge. So, um, yeah,
• 24:45
  Speaker 4: tell me about that.
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: I actually was one of, I found that to be
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: a surprising and memorable part of your book.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: What's his name? His name is judge Stewart Ane. Is
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: that right? Justice.
• 24:53
  Speaker 4: Yeah. Justice Stewart Ane. So is he alive still? Um,
• 24:57
  Speaker 4: I do not believe so.
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: No.
• 24:59
  Speaker 4: Um, So he faced disciplinary action for asking about the
• 25:05
  Speaker 4: ethnicity of a lawyer who appeared before him. And he
• 25:12
  Speaker 4: made some offhanded comments that weren't really relevant.
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: I mean, didn't he give the guy the finger?
• 25:18
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: He was an Arab lawyer.
• 25:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: I got this from your book. He asked him his
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: ethnicity when the guy said he was Arab. The judge
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: said from the bench, you're our sworn enemies. And then
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: ultimately gave him a middle finger from the bench and said,
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: what the fuck do you people want anyway? Is what
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: I'm getting you quote in your book.
• 25:40
  Speaker 3: Yes. Okay.
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: And then he continued to serve on the bench after that.
• 25:45
  Speaker 4: He wasn't one of the most distinguished judges out there.
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: As I've dug into section 230, I find it helpful
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: to pause here for a moment. This was one clearly
• 25:57
  Speaker 2: flawed judge. making one ruling based on one set of
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: circumstances at one point in time in a very new industry,
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: in a low-level state court where decisions aren't binding on
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: anyone else in the country.
• 26:10
  Speaker 7: And yet.
• 26:12
  Speaker 4: His ruling was one of the main motivators for Congress
• 26:16
  Speaker 4: to design Section 230. If Justice Ayn had ruled differently,
• 26:23
  Speaker 4: we might not have even had Section 230 before.
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: There are other ways this story could have gone. If
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: Congress hadn't responded to the prodigy ruling by giving platforms
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: sweeping immunity, it's possible more cases could have been brought,
• 26:39
  Speaker 2: worked their way through the courts with more judges weighing in,
• 26:42
  Speaker 2: more appeals, and a more nuanced legal framework could have
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: developed for the Internet. Or Congress might have come up
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: with a different solution. Maybe granting sites partial protection from
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: lawsuits or requiring them to take certain actions, like making
• 26:56
  Speaker 2: a good faith effort to moderate harmful content, actually be
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: good Samaritans in order to get Section 230 protection. But
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: this is the way the story did go. And it
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: landed us here with the Internet we have today, where lies,
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: deep fakes, scams are running rampant, fueled by tech companies
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: who know we can't really sue them. After a quick break,
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: we return to the present, where there's a real divide
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: over Section 230, and where Jeff Kossoff has some.
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: Concerns about my reporting.
• 27:44
  Speaker 2: Welcome back. We just heard the story of how and
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: why Section 230 was created. But that was then.
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: This is now.
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: And the Internet of the 90s, made up of message
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: boards and forums, was a very different place than the
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: Internet of today. Companies have often strayed from the Good
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: Samaritan intent of Section 230. Prodigy's out of business. Big
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: tech is in charge and nearly untouchable. They've developed algorithms
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: that feed us rage-inducing content and AI that creates deep fakes,
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: content that keeps us addicted and afraid, misinformed and polarized.
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: It seems right to revisit this special immunity that companies
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: like this get from Section 230. But you know who
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: staunchly disagrees with me?
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: Jeff Kasif.
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: Jeff, the man who wrote the book on Section 230,
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: as educated in the history of it as they come.
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: He is for the law.
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: As Jeff and I were emailing to set up our interview,
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: he told me that he'd listened to some of the
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: reporting I'd done so far. Specifically, the episode called I
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: Believed in Sandy Hook. where I started laying out my
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: case for rolling back Section 230. I'd love the opportunity
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: to present some counter arguments and attempt to change your mind,
• 28:54
  Speaker 2: he wrote. I share many of your concerns about the
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: modern internet, but I worry that repealing 230 would make
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: those problems worse. So once we were sitting down together,
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: I asked him, do you feel like there's anything I
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: misrepresented or misunderstood that's crucial in what I've reported so far?
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, this is an ongoing project and I plan
• 29:14
  Speaker 2: to share lots more reporting on it with listeners, but
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: in that episode, were you like, oh man, Brian just
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: totally screwed this up?
• 29:22
  Speaker 4: Well, I think that positioning Section 230 as the special
• 29:27
  Speaker 4: privilege just for internet companies is not a fair characterization
• 29:33
  Speaker 4: of Section 230 because any company or individual who has
• 29:39
  Speaker 4: a website or a blog or an app receives 230 protection.
• 29:44
  Speaker 4: But then also the people who post on those services
• 29:48
  Speaker 4: also benefit from Section 230 tremendously because they would not
• 29:54
  Speaker 4: have nearly as many avenues for their speech if it
• 29:58
  Speaker 4: wasn't for Section 230.
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: It's not just big tech, basically. It's not just a
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: protection for big tech.
• 30:03
  Speaker 4: It's not.
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: I've definitely emphasized the protection Section 230 gives to big
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: tech companies. Those are the places I'm hyper-focused on. But
• 30:12
  Speaker 2: Jeff's right that Section 230 protects other organizations and people
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: on the Internet, too. It protects small news sites that
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: have comment sections from being liable for what readers post there.
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: It protects message boards in neighborhoods or small towns.
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: It protects Wikipedia.
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: And it also protects regular social media users who reshare
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: other people's posts from being liable for what's in those.
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: Jeff feels it's important to point this out because it's
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: those sometimes tiny, vulnerable, not-so-well-resourced outlets and individuals that he
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: worries would get crushed by the threat of litigation if
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: Section 230 protections went away. Really paint the picture for me. Like,
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: we repeal Section 230. What are the kind of most
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: serious blows? Like, what's the hellscape? that emerges in a
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: post 230 world, in your view?
• 31:01
  Speaker 4: I think the biggest problem is that you see fewer
• 31:05
  Speaker 4: avenues for user content. And they're only among these gigantic
• 31:10
  Speaker 4: tech platforms, which is already a problem. But it becomes
• 31:14
  Speaker 4: even more of a problem. There's not these other smaller
• 31:19
  Speaker 4: niche sites, because as a lawyer who's represented small news organizations,
• 31:25
  Speaker 4: I can tell you that There are a lot of
• 31:27
  Speaker 4: platforms that without Section 230 would just get rid of
• 31:30
  Speaker 4: their comment section. This idea that it's for internet companies
• 31:35
  Speaker 4: is just not correct. I'll give an example of Glassdoor.
• 31:40
  Speaker 4: So Glassdoor is a website where people can rate and
• 31:45
  Speaker 4: review both their employers and companies that they've applied to
• 31:49
  Speaker 4: for jobs. Glassdoor has very thoughtful moderation policies. They have
• 31:56
  Speaker 4: certain things that they, I mean, if there's a threat
• 32:00
  Speaker 4: or personal information or things like that, they'll remove that.
• 32:04
  Speaker 4: They're able to do that because of Section 230.
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: Because without Section 230, Jeff says, a company that has
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: scathing reviews from anonymous employees about its work environment could
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: send an angry letter to Glassdoor, claim the reviews are lies,
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: they're defamatory. And Glassdoor would probably remove the reviews to
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: avoid litigation with the angry company. essentially preventing people from
• 32:24
  Speaker 2: putting honest feedback on their site. Every company on Glassdoor
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: can make that kind of stink. Glassdoor could be overwhelmed
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: by legal threats. They might take posts down en masse,
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: or they might just not be able to exist in
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: the first place. Spaces like Glassdoor, where people can speak
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: freely on the internet, could disappear.
• 32:42
  Speaker 4: You can extend that to Yelp. So Yelp has the
• 32:46
  Speaker 4: same sort of policies as Glassdoor. You're suddenly going to
• 32:49
  Speaker 4: have restaurants with all five-star reviews.
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: So an internet without Section 230, we might have to
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: accept a world without sites like Glassdoor or Yelp.
• 33:01
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so. Or it would be sites very
• 33:05
  Speaker 4: different from Glassdoor or Yelp.
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: I guess my feeling is, like, if I had to
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: imagine an internet that didn't have Glassdoor or Yelp, which
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: I think provide value.
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: You know, I've used them. But there is.
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: A level of accountability and mechanisms for accountability against these
• 33:25
  Speaker 2: very influential platforms that really affect day-to-day life and our democracy.
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: That might be a trade-off I'm willing to make. But
• 33:34
  Speaker 2: what else am I not appreciating?
• 33:36
  Speaker 4: Well, I think you're not appreciating the First Amendment very much.
• 33:40
  Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
• 33:40
  Speaker 4: Without Section 230, you're not going to have that former
• 33:45
  Speaker 4: employee or the customer who is ripped off by a
• 33:48
  Speaker 4: car mechanic. They're not going to have an outlet to
• 33:51
  Speaker 4: go speak to. It protects the speakers. I mean, the
• 33:54
  Speaker 4: people who want to have an outlet.
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: In his book, Jeff writes, I did not come to
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: this project as an unbiased observer. I'm a former journalist
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: and lawyer for newspapers and websites, and I have an
• 34:08
  Speaker 2: unabashed enthusiasm for free speech. Section 230's broad immunity has
• 34:13
  Speaker 2: been a net benefit to American society. But I can
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: understand why someone could reach the exact opposite determination because
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: of the real problems that have arisen as a result
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: of irresponsible online platforms. This book is a biography, not
• 34:27
  Speaker 2: a love story, not a tribute, and hopefully not an obituary.
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: Jeff wrote that in 2019. By that point, critics and
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: lawmakers had started to take aim at Section 230, blaming
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: it for lots of the problems that have escalated on
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: the Internet. Hence his worry that he might be writing
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: an obituary. And obviously with senators railing against Section 230
• 34:50
  Speaker 2: again at a hearing just last week, saying it has
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: to go if we want to keep children safe online.
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: It's a fear of Jeff's that I imagine has not
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: gone away. Here's Democrat Amy Klobuchar last week.
• 35:01
  Speaker 6: It's long past time to repeal Section 230. I had thought, well, no,
• 35:06
  Speaker 6: maybe we can put in these rules in place and
• 35:08
  Speaker 6: the tech companies will work with us. And that just
• 35:11
  Speaker 6: hasn't happened. The opposite has happened. And as we approach
• 35:15
  Speaker 6: this 30-year anniversary, maybe it's time to do a major assessment,
• 35:19
  Speaker 6: which takes for any parent about one minute, to realize
• 35:23
  Speaker 6: the harm that has been caused by all of this.
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: I also believe that Section 230 warrants a major reassessment.
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: But especially after learning the history of the law from Jeff,
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: I'll cop to some jitters when I hear senators stridently
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: demanding full repeal of Section 230 without also talking about
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: how they're going to protect speech. To Jeff's point, there's
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: a scenario where in an effort to hold big tech
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: platforms accountable, people's ability to speak on the internet could
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: get stamped out too. Jeff's right to keep me focused
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: on that. I still believe it's possible to balance both.
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: There are thoughtful proposals out there for how to reform
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: rather than repeal 230, which is where my head's currently at.
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: We'll dig into some of those in the new year.
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: I'm really curious what you all think of this. Come
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: chat about it with me on Substack. Questioneverything.substack.com. You can
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: send me a message there, or we have an open
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: free chat room where everybody can weigh in, and Substack
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: is not liable for what you say. Also, you can
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: DM me on Instagram at brihreed. That's B-R-I-H-R-E-E-D. See, I
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: am not a Luddite.
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: I don't think these platforms should go away necessarily. I
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: use them.
• 36:38
  Speaker 2: I just think there should be more ways to hold
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: them accountable to make them better than they currently are.
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: Jeff Kossoff's book is called The 26 Words That Created
• 36:46
  Speaker 2: the Internet.
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: Check it out.
• 36:48
  Speaker 2: Today's episode was produced by Sam Egan. It was edited
• 36:50
  Speaker 2: by our managing editor, Kevin Sullivan. Robin Semyon and I
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: are the executive producers of Question Everything. Our team also
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: includes producers Sophie Kazis.
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: And Zach St.
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: Louis, contributing editors Neil Drumming and Jen Kinney, and associate
• 37:02
  Speaker 2: producers Kevin Shepard and Emma Grillo. This episode was fact-checked
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: by Annika Robbins, mixing and sound design by Sharif Youssef.
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: Our music is by Matt McGinley. Our KCRW partners include
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: Arnie Seipel, Tejal Ajmera, Natalie Hill, and Jennifer Farrow.
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: We'll see you soon.