it's a pretty good standard to consider, sferblely if we start thinking about revenge porn site. if you're on one of those sites and it says she has no idea that you're looking at her picture and you decide to share it, you have a good sense that this is a nonconsense yule image. that's the type of behavior we're discussing. as to the question of who should be responsible, many of you know because of section 230 which allows for a lot of immunity, 230 will always trump. none of these state criminal laws pose any threat to -- it can't actually preempt -- no state criminal law can preempt 230. there's as many of you know section 230 is not absolute. it does not apply to copyright. it doesn't apply to electronic privacy communications but it also doesn't apply to violations of federal criminal law which is why google, facebook, twitter all have to care about child pornography laws because section 230 doesn't write them a blank check for that. what i want to emphasize here is while it is true we have to care about unintended consequences, we have to be worried about that. that's true