Send a textTwenty-six words written in 1996 gave platforms legal immunity. One court decision in 1997 turned that immunity into a business model.Attorney Carrie Goldberg shares what it's like representing hundreds of victims, from sextortion to cyberbullying to suicide, and watching nearly every case slam into the same wall. Brett Allred and Kristin Bride reveal what the absence of "good faith" looks like when platforms know the patterns but wait for children to die.And as Section 230 finally begins to crack, we expose the tech industry's next move: rebranding the same harmful systems as "AI" to claim a new decade of immunity.When courts won't look under the hood, we will.Content warning: Discussion of suicide, drug overdose, online exploitation00:00:00 - Twenty-Six Words The three-week delay and Section 230's shield00:03:29 - The Good Samaritan Betrayed What Congress intended vs. what courts decided00:05:30 - Zeran's Inversion How one 1997 case changed everything00:09:00 - The Business Model of Blindness Operating anatomy: Why platforms choose ignorance00:11:00 - Carrie's Courtroom A decade fighting the same wall00:18:30 - The Algorithm Problem Why Section 230's walls are finally cracking00:22:00 - The AI Escape Hatch Tech's next immunity play00:25:30 - Riley's Story When the website wishes you luck as you die00:29:30 - What They Knew Evidence that leaked out anyway00:34:30 - The Supreme Court Punts Gonzalez v. Google and the pattern they ignored00:40:00 - The Tobacco Playbook Profitable ignorance at scale00:45:30 - Carson's Story 220 million downloads of a documented deadly pattern00:52:00 - The Privileged Defense Why people fight for platform immunity00:57:00 - The Movement Survivor parents refusing to stay silent01:02:30 - The Light We Hold Call to action: How to talk to your kidsMusic by: Kjartan Abel CC BY-SA 4.0 https://kjartan-abel.com