Section 230 Series: Online Free Speech and Section 230 with Jamie Susskind

Welcome back to TPI’s podcast, Two Think Minimum. I’m Sarah Oh, Senior Fellow at TPI, and I’m joined by Scott Wallsten, President and Senior Fellow at TPI. On this episode, we are pleased to host Jamie Susskind. Jamie is the Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs for the Consumer Technology Association. In that role, she coordinates CTA advocacy strategy and represents the association before federal agencies and the administration for policies to encourage the growth of innovative consumer technologies. Jamie oversees a portfolio of regulatory issues, including cybersecurity, the internet of things, content moderation, equipment authorizations, and standard setting, consumer protection, spectrum, and broadband and infrastructure deployment. Additionally, she manages CTA’s relationships with third party advocacy groups to promote CTA’s policy agenda. Thanks Jamie, for joining us for part three of our Section 230 series.

Susskind: Thank you for having me.

Sarah Oh: The Consumer Technology Association has been a strong advocate for industry and the FCC’s requests for public comment, where you filed comments and reply comments in response to NTIAs petition for rulemaking. The petition, which followed the president’s Executive Order 1395, preventing online censorship from June of 2020. So, Jamie, would you mind giving us a brief overview of CTA’s two comments?

Susskind: Sure. Thanks again for having me, happy to do it. I’m sure you have established in your prior podcasts on the topic, but quickly for those who don’t know, Section 230 stands for the common sense principle that responsibility for online speech lies with the speaker, and it ensures that internet platforms can remove offensive or inappropriate speech without fear of liability. So CTA has been advocating on this issue for a long time, and this is an issue that’s really important to our members. So as Sarah said, we filed two sets of comments at the FCC recently in response to the NTIA petition for rule making. So in the first, which is very long, there’s a lot there. We sort of tackle four points. So first we make policy argument focusing on the importance of Section 230 to US tech leadership. And so, as we say, kind of in summary, Section 230 is the bedrock of the modern internet. So, in our view, Section 230 has allowed the internet to grow unfettered by regulation. And it’s contributed to the free and open dialogues that we see online every day, which is beneficial for consumers, beneficial for these online platforms, beneficial basically for the US as an innovation leader. Another point that we focus on is the text itself of 230 in the legislative history. And so, we talk a little bit about how Section 230 has actually worked in practice exactly the way that Congress intended for it to do. And, you know, we’ve had occasion to speak with Senator Wyden and congressmen, Chris Cox, and they continue to be strong proponents of Section 230, and they themselves have shared their concerns with the NTIA petition. And we agree with that. So, you know, in our view, we’ve said that NTIAs petition is basically asking the FCC to rewrite the statute, even though it’s self-effectuating and clear on its face. And the changes that NTIA is asking the FCC to do would basically contravene the statute and its intent that providers can moderate content online without fear of legal liability. We also talk a little bit about how NTA’s petition goes against years of FCC precedent, which expressly declined to regulate edge providers. And most recently they did reaffirm that in the 2017 RIF Order, Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which actually I had occasion to work on when I was at the commission. The second time, we also delve into a little bit more FCC jurisdiction on this issue. Specifically, we talk about it with respect to the transparency proposals that NTIA is asking for in its petition, because, you know, one, I think because the commission that’s something they might look at closely, but two, because the other rules that NTIA is asking for actually seem to sort of go against the statute on its face and rewrite the statute. So, we don’t really think that those have much merit. So, we wanted to focus a little bit more on the transparency proposals. And the last thing we talked about is the First Amendment, which is really important here. And we talk a bit about the First Amendment problems that are inherent in what NTIA is asking the FCC to do. We think that this is a major problem. We think that would NTIA is asking for basically forced neutrality would suppress and chill speech online. And, you know, that’s not helpful to consumers that contravenes the entire intent of what 230 was meant to do. And that’s just not what we do in a democracy. So then when we did our reply comments, we wanted to seize on the idea of sort of like, what does a democracy look like a bit more? I thought that this was something that was missing from the records. So, we tried to focus on basically two points. One is that the hands-off approach to the internet is exactly what distinguishes the US from other countries, which I think is kind of enshrined in Section 230 and Section 230 has really helped us get to that place. So, what we’ve said is that the US government should embrace that fact, which has helped make us the global leader in tech innovation. And we shouldn’t seek to emulate other countries to actually have much more repressed to have approaches to tech than we do. One of which is China. I mean, there’s others out there, but that’s sort of a big one. And then the second point is that actually China, itself, is kind of hot on our heels looking to take over the US as the global leader in tech innovation. So actually, the ones that would benefit from gutting Section 230, ironically, as China, and, you know, we thought this was interesting. I, as you probably know, Sarah and Scott do a lot for CTA on 5G. I also work on security issues. And so, the administration has really taken a strong stance to kind of distance itself from China and say, you know, we do things differently in the US you know, we don’t want to model the way that China does things. And so, I thought this was a very interesting position for them to take, because it’s a little more authoritarian than I would feel comfortable with the US doing. And kind of, it’s very dissimilar from their stances on things like 5G and security. So those are comments, there’s a lot there, but happy to answer more questions.

Oh: I think that raises just an interesting paradox of this whole proceeding. Do you think there’s politics involved here? I mean, yes. There’s like a lot of Section 230 doctrine and ideas about First Amendment and all the litigation history, but what do you think of the administrative procedure here? Like what happens next? Let’s say DSB reads all the comments and they decide on what to do with NTIA’s petition. What happens with Congress or the DOJ?

Susskind: I’ve sort of tried to map it out in my mind. Right. So I don’t sort of dismiss it as an initial matter. Right. I don’t know that this is going away anytime soon. I don’t see a whole lot of validity in it myself, but it seems that, you know, we’ve heard a lot from folks on both sides of the aisle. We’ve heard from folks in Congress, folks in agencies, academics. Right? So, I think the conversation will continue. So as far as the FCC goes, right, I think, and I’ve been there twice. Right? So, I had some different stints there. One as an attorney, and then I was Commissioner Carr’s chief of staff. Right? So, I feel like I have a fairly good understanding of how things work. So, we just filed reply comments. I think it would be very, very hard for them to turn around something akin to what NTIA is asking for before the election. I mean, that’s just a ton of work. Also. It’s super politically sensitive. Frankly, I don’t know right now, if the Chairman should get three votes for it, given that Commissioner O’Reilly, I don’t know if you were to accuse. I don’t know if he would sign onto what NTIA wants. So yesterday, I actually participated in an FCBA event on this and Commissioner Carr was also a guest. And I think he sort of confirmed that. He suggested that the timing might be too tight for anything to come out before the election. And then I think it will depend. So, I think if Biden wins the Presidency, I don’t see a Democrat FCC wanting to do this, but I do think they might be willing to work with Congress to talk about options. I think if Trump wins reelection, I guess it will happen and they’ll have, you know, four more years to make it happen. And then we’ll just sort of see how that goes. Obviously, under this administration, as you say, Sarah, we have DOJ putting draft legislation out there. So, I don’t know that there’s time to make it happen now before inauguration in January, but maybe it’s just a marker for if they in fact, get a second term.

Wallsten: When you say that there are maybe other options or, you know, of course raises the point that the debate about Section 230 is really a debate about other things. And this came from people who are concerned about things like election interference, fake news, these claims of bias. So you end up with this kind of weird coalition of groups who disagree with each other on everything, except that they’re all mad at the tech companies for different reasons. And 230 is kind of a nice vehicle to put all of that on. Outside of 230, how do your companies, how do your members deal with this? Because they still got all of these specific complaints coming towards them, whether they’re valid or not. Even if the Section 230 debate went away, would that make these sort of underlying issues go away? Or can one not disappear without the other?

Susskind: I don’t know that the tech lash would necessarily go away. At CES 2020 in January, I actually moderated a panel on sort of the merits of breaking up big tech. So, I think as you say, Scott, we’re in this, right? This is sort of a larger dialogue. And I think things you identify are probably the right precipitating factors as to why we’re seeing this. The thing that I would sort of urge folks to do. And I’ve said this publicly before, is that we need to take a step back and try to identify. I like to channel former FTC chair, Maureen Ohlhausen, what are the harms that we’re actually seeking to remedy and kind of what is the right vehicle to do that? And I think we actually heard that from some of the panelists that were on my panel at CES. So, we talked about, you know, is antitrust the right remedy to sort of address what you see as like larger societal harms, which I don’t, by the way, agree with, of course, with respect to some of our members. And I think largely folks said no. So, you know, if an issue is privacy and we feel like companies are not being responsible stewards of consumer data, right? Like, let’s talk about passing a real, you know, a national privacy law. Like, let’s think about that, right? If the harms are actually something like price fixing that, you know, antitrust can address, sure, we can have that conversation. But I think that people are channeling Section 230 for different things. And we’ve seen that in public statements. So we’ve seen some Democrats even came out this week and talked about disinformation, as you say. And then I read the statement of president Trump and Senator Holly when they met with some state AGS earlier this week. And so, they just talked about the companies being too big. And, you know, I don’t think that Section 230 reform is really, it’s not the right remedy for companies being big, nor do I necessarily think that I don’t know that I think that company is being big as necessarily something you need to fix without proof of like actual consumer harm. I mean, that’s what antitrust should be looking at, but I think this is a bigger conversation and we need to find out if there are actual cognizable harms and like, what do you do with those? You know, what is the appropriate tailored remedy in that case?

Oh: What’s interesting too, is I watched the antitrust hearings for the tech companies and half of the questions were about section 230. So, they get all mixed up when we’re supposed to be talking antitrust issues, the complaints about content moderation come up. And then when we’re supposed to be talking about content moderation, people bring up the bigness complaints and privacy is kind of there as well. In your own role at how do you keep all the different issues separate? Are you following them and responding separately? Are you bringing, do you have like a big view, a universal view of what to do with tech lash?

Susskind: We tend to approach them as discreet issues, I would say. So, for example, if there’s actual competition issues that Michael who you’ll know, and he’s my class at CTA, he and I address those as competition issues? And then section 230, we tend to treat as a discrete issue. I mean, that’s related, right? So, I can’t promise that we wouldn’t have some discussion in the future or are we talking about both of them at the same time, but you know, I think they’re related, but they’re not the same. And privacy, we treat separately. Security, which is related to privacy, we sort of treat separately. You know, I think it benefits our companies to try to be specific about what the issues are and sort of what the next steps should or shouldn’t be.

Wallsten: As this debate has gone on, do you think the issues have become clearer or more convoluted? Because you’ve said these can easily mix up different parts of tech lash with 230, and talk about 230 where we should be talking about antitrust, and talking about antitrust when we should be talking about 230. And in the antitrust hearings, we saw all of it all mixed together. Oh, you know, this long ongoing debate about 230 helping to clarify what issues belong to which potential problems or are people using either intentionally or just because they don’t understand it, making it ever more convoluted?

Susskind: I should preface this by saying I would not begrudge Congress for trying to get the information that it needs to pass the laws that it wants, right? So, FCC Commissioner O’Reilly, who like me, was a former Senate staffer will say, you know, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, should do what Congress is going to do. And I do agree with that. I am concerned that as you suggest, this is all sort of convoluted under the umbrella of big tech is big and scary and has data and we’re worried and we need to feel like we need to do something. Yeah, I don’t know that that is the best approach. I was a Senate staffer and my boss was wonderful and great. And I do feel like I don’t disagree with folks who say that Congress could probably use, and we all can probably use to more information about what the tech landscape looks like and what products are and how the market is working. I, you know, I myself could probably use that information and I’m fortunate to be able to turn to companies and ask for that. So, I think that taking the time to gather more information and more specific information would not hurt the conversation. Like I said, I don’t think that going, and that’s me speculating, right? I don’t think that going into an election coming up in a month and a half is, you know, there’s not going to be time for them to do something major, or at least that’s me speculating. Right? I could be wrong. So hopefully at least this will give folks some more time to maybe think about as they go into a new Congress, or we go into new sessions for the administration, with maybe new leadership, you know, what do we want our priorities to be? And how do we address those in a helpful way?

Wallsten: You mentioned the election. So weirdly, Biden and Trump both seem to have agreed on getting rid of Section 230 bizarrely, but how much of this is being driven by the election? Will we wake up after the election and suddenly nobody cares as much anymore?

Susskind: I don’t know that I can say that, right? I don’t know. I mean, because this emerged, as I said, Festa and Foster came about, remember it was the 2016, 2017ish, 2016ish? Right about the time of midterm elections maybe, but you know, it didn’t really go away. So I don’t know. It might just be that this is something that continues to be of interest to folks going forward. And, you know, I guess then it is what it is. I think a lot of the activity now might be spurred because, you know, time is limited and folks want to be able to sort of, get in their last stuff before the election and before, you know, a new Congress and before new leadership. But I think there are folks who are super interested in it and they probably will continue to be super interested in it.

Oh: I think it’s important to remember the American internet companies are in a global race, competition with other markets, Europe and China. And I thought your reply comments were interesting that you brought that perspective into the discussion, and the First Amendment, that’s uniquely American. Other countries don’t have First Amendment protections like we do, especially China. Do you know of other commenters in this proceeding who have talked about the First Amendment issues?

Susskind: I think a lot of folks talked about the First Amendment, and I think that probably Tech Freedom would not be happy if I didn’t mention that they filed a hundred page comment, that I think a fair amount was the First Amendment, but I think a lot of folks actually focused on the First Amendment issues. I will say a little disheartened. So yesterday, as I said, I participated in an event that was FCBA. And so, they had the acting NTIA administrator on and he said he didn’t feel that the First Amendment arguments hold any sway here. And, you know, we couldn’t disagree more strongly with that. We see major problems with forced neutrality of speech online. We think that this is a huge problem. And we’re super concerned with the idea that here in the US which is a democracy and has the First Amendment, the government, in any way, would be seeking to compel speech or suppress speech or dictate sort of the terms of what speech would look like speech of private citizens on private platforms. I think that’s astounding.

Wallsten: Just to go back on that for a second, that the NTIA was saying that there is a place where the First Amendment does not apply, that it’s not relevant?

Susskind: He feels that they feel, I guess that this is not, that is not a valid criticism of their petition. That is what was conveyed, which is public. You could certainly, I’m sure, watch the actual webcast of that CLE that we had yesterday. We could not disagree, as I said, more strongly. I think this is worrisome. And I think that’s part of what compelled us to focus as we did in our reply comments. Because as I sort of yell at my husband about this at home, I say, this is not an authoritarian country. This is the United States. And like, we have a right to post whatever we want, and the government in no way should be engaging in this. There’s nothing to do with that. Like you can set aside whether you think there’s bias, which I personally do not, actually, as a conservative and Republican. I don’t personally think that is true, but that’s okay. People can, reasonable minds, can differ on that, but like the government in any way, stepping into moderate or regulate or set bounds on speech, like that’s not the answer.

Wallsten: I mean, that seems very disturbing. It’s one thing for people to say, like you said, make these claims about the things that they worry about, whether or not they’re true, or to say that these companies need to somehow take more responsibility. But to say that a private actor does not have First Amendment rights does not sound, that’s not what we learned at School House Rock, that’s for sure.

Susskind: Correct. And you know, I don’t want to mischaracterize, so I will certainly encourage you all to, and your listeners to watch the video. If they make that available, you know, I encourage you to have conversations with them. I would not want to mischaracterize the department’s position, but we’re just not on the same page with them there.

Oh: I also wonder too, if Section 230 is reformed and just like privacy legislation? It might take five years to reform it, and you know it’ll go through the Supreme court. Is Congress equipped to write this legislation like privacy legislation, Section 230 reform? I think it would take a long time to get legislation through.

Susskind: As I said, I would never begrudge Congress the ability to do what they feel is necessary to do. Right? I am concerned that especially with regard to Section 230, what happens as a practical matter? And I mean, we have a lot of companies that are big, right? And maybe they have better resources to do this. I don’t know. Maybe they can’t. Cause I think this is still not feasible even for them, but we have a lot of companies that are smaller and medium sized members and they’re not online platforms where people are putting up political posts, right? These are like web hosting companies or managed cloud providers and they’re not posting or sifting through content. They’re barely just making sure that the internet is running. Right? So, I don’t know. It’s like, do you just leave everything up? Do you pull everything down? I mean, that’s the quandary that we were in before we had Section 230 and in part that’s why the directors of Section 230 wrote Section 230. I think obviously people have sort of thrown around this, like “Don’t Break the Internet” as a clever phrase that was back from the net neutrality days. But like, maybe it’s true. Don’t break the internet, right? Like how would these companies sift through eight gazillion posts, data on Twitter every day? You know, what do you do if there’s no way to organize it and filter it and sort it and provide, you know, present it to consumers in some sort of readable way?

Wallsten: But I think that also assumes that there is an answer that would be acceptable to enough people that the controversy would go away. I mean, our preferences are so diverse. Some people will always think something should be taken down and other people will always think it should stay up. It’s a problem without an answer.

Susskind: Right, which is by users of these sites have their own sort of First Amendment ability to engage in conversation they want to engage in. And we should, for the most part, I mean, that should be the bounds of what happens here. Right?

Oh: What’s interesting to me too, is that even if the FCC were to write rules, your first comment talked about just the legislative history of Section 230 and a plain reading of it. It would definitely go through the courts on appeal. If the FCC or NTIA even have authority to interpret the statute that way. Is this the start of like another decade of appellate litigation?

Susskind: So CDT, right? The Center for Democracy and Technology, they already sued when the executive order came out and were not a party to the litigation, but obviously we’re following it closely. And we work with them on a lot of things including this. Yeah, I mean, possibly right. So we do not think that the commission has the legal authority to do this. We think that Congress would have given them the authority to do it if they wanted them to do it. I don’t think it’s enough that it was sort of dropped into Title II of the Communications Act, even though, you know, sure it’s there, but the drafters of this loss say, well, we explicitly did not want this to turn into the Federal Computer Commission. We did not want the FCC to take a role. And the FCC itself has just claimed that at least 230B has any sort of actual authority over them. Yeah. And as I said, we talked about the transparency requirements and we didn’t see any specific place in the authority that NTIA cited that would actually sort of give any basis for transparency requirements on edge providers, which by the way, the FCC explicitly declined to do in 2017. And I’m sure that they had a reason that they explicitly declined to do that, which is, you know, they didn’t think that they could do that. I mean, certainly I would not be surprised if the FCC were to move forward. If folks kicked off a whole new round of litigation, which would be, you know, net neutrality all over again, but sort of platform neutrality, as we’ve said.

Oh: One of our colleagues at TPI, Tom Lenard, he wrote a piece recently. I think it’s going to be published soon about a proposal for a digital regulator. A lot of that argumentation is similar to net neutrality fight and how finding the authority to regulate unknown harms is kind of a discussion that we’ve had in tech policy for a while. Do you all have a view on the digital regulator idea?

Susskind: I don’t think that CTA, at least in my time there. I don’t think we’ve come out and said anything. I don’t personally like that as an idea. So it depends once again, it’s like back to the, what are the specific harms we’re talking about, right. So we’re talking about privacy and security, right? I mean the Federal Trade Commission has been able to enforce in that space. And I think we think that that’s an appropriate venue for those issues. You know, the FCC has obviously been able to be the regulator for certain things. You know, all of the like sort of common carrier things, wireless service, all of the things that are within their jurisdiction to do. And I think they’ve done a good job with those things. You know what there was also, right? Congress made pretty explicit decisions as to the things that they didn’t want regulated. And there was a reason they didn’t really want the internet regulated. So, I think that that was a decision made for a reason. And that doesn’t mean we should then just sort of fill in a regulator because there’s a gap, right. If there’s a gap, there’s a gap because there is a gap in the statute explicitly,

Wallsten: You’re still relatively new at CTA. If you were still at the FCC, now the FCC has this issue in front of them, what would you be differently? I mean, like what’s the, what’s the way that a Commissioner’s office has to look at this compared to where you are now?

Susskind: So, it might be different, right. Because, so I, as you know, right. I said, I worked for Commissioner Carr and I think Commissioner Carr’s views on this had been very clear, right? So this might be one where, and I don’t even know, I guess I might’ve been his advisor on this hypothetically were I still there, you know, I think his views were clear, but so in theory, right, we would read the petition and we would all talk. I mean, we’re a small office. We would talk about the issues and sort of how we wanted to go on things and how they felt within the political scope of what was going on. I mean, like I’ll say right, Section 230 came up while I was still there because there were folks talking about this issue. So we actually had talked about it for a long time. And I mean, I’ll say right that I knew, I think a lot less about it than I do now, because it was just not a thing I had focused on too much. So I was still learning and trying to figure out what the right answer was. I think he’s been like actually fairly consistent. I don’t know that he’s really like changed his view on this for me, even when I was there. So, but I mean, I guess if I were in a different office where maybe the boss’s view was not as sort of firmly held, right, it would just be taking meetings with stakeholders and trying to sort through the history of the law and sort of what Congress has said and the implications of it from a variety of ways.

Wallsten: Do you have members who have different feelings about this particular issue?

Susskind: We do!

Wallsten: How do you manage those competing preferences?

Susskind: We kind of start from the idea that, and we’ve done this on different issues, not even just this one, right? But CTA has sort of had things that historically we’ve had, you know, X position on and we don’t tend to move away from that. So, this is one where we, you know, our position has been what it has been. And even as we picked up sort of different sorts of members, we just haven’t shifted. But what I will say is in drafting the comments, I did have conversations with a lot of different members. So, I talked to some of the platforms, and I would say particularly the ISPs had some specific views. And I really did actually try to work their views into our comments and try to tweak some of the language to make sure that they felt more comfortable with the position that we were taking. You know, they’re in a different spot, right? Because of what was done in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order with respect to their own transparency requirements. I understand that there’s some sensitivities there. And I think at the end of the day, folks didn’t really give me too much heartburn. They just said, you know, thanks for taking our feedback and okay, sounds good. So, I think our members understand and they try to work with us. And you know what I mean, they all do have other associations that might take different positions than we do. So I think they get where we’re coming from, but they’re all very collegial about it. And I mean, I will say one of our ISP came out publicly with different views and that’s fine. You know, they worked with me on our comments and they were totally fine. You know, they worked well with me and they were very reasonable with me. So I think they’re totally entitled to have other views.

Wallsten: I’m not sure that’s something that a lot of people outside of DC kind of understand, that people are actually able to disagree with each other in productive ways.

Susskind: Maybe that’s just me.

Wallsten: Maybe, maybe not everyone feels responsible for the entire country.

Susskind: Exactly. And when we look, we have like 2000 members that we don’t certainly, we don’t get 2000 replies on things, but we have like 2000 members, you know, all over the country. So, sometimes you have to find ways to sort of filter what you get, but we do our best really. I mean, if a member asks us for something, we really do our best to try to accommodate the ask, if we can.

Wallsten: Is working at a trade association, what you expected going in? Because you’ve worked with them for so long, but it’s a different environment.

Susskind: So, I actually purposely chose a trade association because I really wanted the ability to understand where different companies are on different things. I didn’t want to just sort of hear one company’s view, not to mean one company’s view is not helpful, but I just wanted to get sort of a bigger, you know, lay of the land on things. And I did know the CTA team from, not my time at the FCC, but I worked with them when I worked in Senator Fischer’s office and Senator Boone’s office. So, I knew that it was a good team and I knew that the issues were interesting and sort of ever evolving. So, I feel like I made a good choice and the members are great. A lot of them are companies I’ve worked with over the years. And a lot of them were even the same teams I’ve worked with over the years. So, getting to work with them in this capacity has been fun, and understanding where they are on specific things has been, you know, a good learning experience for me.

Wallsten: What’s going to happen with CES this year?

Susskind: They’re going all digital. So, I think that’ll be fun. So, it’s funny, right? So, I said to Michael, my boss, I’ve only ever gone to every other year for like a variety of reasons. And I figured that when I came on to CTA, I’d be there every year. But you know, I will not be in Las Vegas this year, but I guess I will be attending CES. So, I think it will be good. I can’t really give too much information, but you know, our conferences team is working really hard to get everything going. And we’ve been having conversations in our department and government affairs about how to structure our policy sessions in a way to still provide value to all of our attendees. So, I think it’ll be cool to see how they do it this way. And I am not myself, a like conferences person, who is skilled at doing that. So, I’ve been impressed from what I’ve heard from our team so far about how they’re pulling this together. And I’ll be excited to see what TPI looks like as a digital event as well.

Wallsten: Thank you! So will we… No, I mean, I’ve been wondering how an event, as massive as CES could do that. I mean, you know, doing one Zoom event is easy. It’s, it’s almost financially costless, but as soon as you start scaling up, it quickly becomes really complicated, and there is no event bigger and more complex than CES, I think.

Susskind: I feel like if anybody handle it, our team and Karen who runs, who’s like the very, very head, our executive VP of CES. I mean, she can get it done, so I will trust that they are able to do it. And I’m sure it’ll be great. So, I will look forward to it. But yeah, we’ll share more information when we’re able to do that.

Wallsten: Looking forward to it.

Oh: Thanks Jamie, for coming on the program and for giving us a summary of your comments and reply comments. You’re right, Section 230, isn’t going to go away anytime soon and we’ll be listening in to the hearings next week and legislative proposals and what the FCC says in response to the NTIA’s petition.

Susskind: I appreciate it. Thank you both.