Why the most important internet law is being rewritten

US lawmakers want to change Section 230, a pivotal moderation clause that’s often called the internet’s most important law. But critics say that changing Section 230 could cause more problems than it solves.
Learn more: bit.ly/3uZ0RVw
Subscribe: goo.gl/G5RXGs
Like The Verge on Facebook: goo.gl/2P1aGc
Follow on Twitter: goo.gl/XTWX61
Follow on Instagram: goo.gl/7ZeLvX
The Vergecast Podcast: pod.link/430333725
More about our podcasts: www.theverge.com/podcasts
Read More: www.theverge.com
Community guidelines: bit.ly/2D0hlAv
Wallpapers from The Verge: bit.ly/2xQXYJr
Subscribe to Verge Science on USlikes, a new home base for our explorations into the future of science: bit.ly/2FqJZMl

Comments

  1. The Verge

    The VergeMonth ago

    How do you think the internet could be improved?

  2. Albert Jackinson

    Albert JackinsonMonth ago

    I think one of THE biggest issues is dealing with misinformation. I don't know what legislation could be enacted to mitigate or fix the issue, but that's my input.

  3. JayJ_The_ CreekerMan

    JayJ_The_ CreekerManMonth ago

    Eliminate internet and force people to rediscover life and become human again technology social media and internet has ruined the world time to reset life before it's to late 😁

  4. Him

    HimMonth ago

    @Corey Malachi uwu

  5. Liam O'Donnell

    Liam O'DonnellMonth ago

    Get rid of Facebook, reduce the data collection and generally improve the privacy and security for everyone.

  6. The Brawl Boys

    The Brawl BoysMonth ago

    Idk, but not by having a puppet of a president. Along with media not being controlled to say "orange man bad" and to have trump removed from office cause they brainwashed the people in the middle of the road to be dem.

  7. Bryan Pacheco

    Bryan Pacheco8 days ago

    Well, the social media ONLY censors right wing people. We all know this, and I'm a centrist

  8. Storm Trooper

    Storm Trooper28 days ago

    Klobuchar: Look at these huge potatoes they sent me, this is the real problem! Amy, why are you complaining? if anything getting bigger potatoes is a good thing. Especially if you paid the same price as normal potatoes.

  9. Edpo Veronez

    Edpo VeronezMonth ago

    This report is very biased. Why not diversify the interviewees? why do they always choose people who only reinforce their opinion? Why, instead of reporting the criticisms from the point of view of the presenter, do not call on people who are injured by the Legislation to speak for themselves? The impression that remains is that they do not want to seriously debate the issue.

  10. Crypto.addict

    Crypto.addictMonth ago

    the most important aspect for me is the privacy, for example it's very common now to upload your files and data on the internet. Personally I do it in descentralized cloud storages such as Internxt Drive because I know they are secure and they respect my privacy but there are plenty of others that don't do it and people should be aware of it

  11. Sean Gelarden

    Sean GelardenMonth ago

    So basically you have a pipe spewing raw sewage on everyone so you go to the source and they tell you they just own the pipe and if you make them take responsibility their model doesn't work so go talk to the people flushing their toilets, regulating a business is not violating the first ammendment

  12. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    If the government forces a private entity to host and associate with speech they don't want that would violate the 1st amendment. The government can't compel someone to express a certain view.

  13. Gold Formation

    Gold FormationMonth ago

    😜

  14. Richard Ciotti

    Richard CiottiMonth ago

    Nicely done overall, a bit overly simplistic and you failed to mention the bigger issue with social media. The C word, censorship, the fact that the largest tech companies are been engaging in editing and suppressing content based on whether or not it aligns with their political views, not “in good faith” as specified in section 230. Big tech’s abuse of this alone should pierce the veil of protection that 230 gives.I agree that 230 was written without knowledge of where the Internet and social media was headed. It was written in order to give early content providers and the Internet room to grow and expand organically without being overwhelmed with litigation. Well it worked and now big tech has grown into a cancer. A cancer that has metastasize and now reaches into almost every aspect of our lives. Section 230 should be thrown out and completely rewritten. That along with the repeal of the Smith Mundt act of 2012 would be a good start in fixing these rapidly growing problems.

  15. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    You're assuming that "good faith" means without any type of bias in regard to viewpoint, but that's not how it's ever been interpreted. I could make a forum specifically for conservatives and ban anyone with a liberal viewpoint and I'd still have section 230 protections.

  16. Ellen March

    Ellen MarchMonth ago

    Excuse me, but when a POPULAR magazine, with ZERO stated credentials, starts an article with "what conservatives got wrong" about a complex LEGAL issue and history, lumping together a vast army of lawyers and politicians with more knowledge and experience in their respective little fingers into a single flimsy stereotype, WHO DO THEY THINK TAKES THEM SERIOUSLY. Bueller? Bueller?? PLEASE tell me I'm not the only one...

  17. Papose

    PaposeMonth ago

    The brace

  18. Rudy M

    Rudy MMonth ago

    Imagine censoring a current sitting president 🤡 clowns

  19. Rudy M

    Rudy MMonth ago

    We need an internet with freedom of speech for EVERYONE

  20. Metacognition88

    Metacognition88Month ago

    Thanks Verge. This was some great nutritious information

  21. Fran

    FranMonth ago

    Mundane

  22. Aaron Schram

    Aaron SchramMonth ago

    The problem is that there is only one side that is providing the definitions of what is considered "problematic content"... For example, right now someone hearing, reading, seeing something they don't agree with can be considered "harassment"... Who gets to define "harm"? who gets to define "hate speech"?

  23. Jeremy H

    Jeremy HMonth ago

    I don't think section 230 should be modified. I don't think government should tell a company what to do. With that said the predatory EULA and contracts between companies should be reviewed as there are significant issues.

  24. TheAstronomyDude

    TheAstronomyDudeMonth ago

    If I host a site on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic which country's laws do I need to follow?

  25. Elvin deSouza

    Elvin deSouzaMonth ago

    If you're paying for hosting, then the country the web service is based in. If not then the guys who regulate the domain suffix(.com etc) can deplatform you. Also there's an organization that regulates every dns entry or something, that's how they make it difficult for people to visit terrorist groups' websites

  26. Theelysium

    TheelysiumMonth ago

    Censoring people is not fixing some thing. Just cause you don’t like others opinions doesn’t mean you get to stop them from talking.

  27. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    You can if they're talking on the website that you made.

  28. diego jimendz

    diego jimendzMonth ago

    Where is my 2600 fast mhz boy

  29. Ben X

    Ben XMonth ago

    Do not touch the freaking internet!! One of the best inventions of our time, destroyed by lawmakers that do not understand it on any technical capacity...

  30. m4tt3m50n

    m4tt3m50nMonth ago

    This is US centric. Section 230 is irrelevant to me in the UK. What needs to happen is the same internet laws across the board.

  31. Tech4now

    Tech4nowMonth ago

    How do you do this and keep accounts anonymous?

  32. Armoterra

    ArmoterraMonth ago

    I think you misrepresented the point of conservatives. They’re not against platforms deleting posts or suspending accounts; they’re against them doing so selectively, and in a biased manner. Their argument is that if they pick and choose which voices get promoted based on their own political biases, then they’re a publishing company and not a platform.

  33. Frankie L

    Frankie LMonth ago

    But section 230 does not care whether you’re a publisher or platform. It’s about third party users vs not third party users.

  34. Armoterra

    ArmoterraMonth ago

    @Steve Wonderbelt Again, whether the stance is valid or not is not my point.

  35. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    @Armoterra It seems like there really isn't a consistent stance on this from either side. Conservatives seem to have different opinions on what the issue is and how to fix it, as do Liberals. Many conservative politicians have introduced legislation that would penalize platforms for moderating anything at all while others don't have an issue with moderation they just want it to be more "fair" while still others don't care about moderation they just think these platforms are breaking anti-trust laws.

  36. Armoterra

    ArmoterraMonth ago

    @Steve Wonderbelt Yes, but their viewpoint is that those biases would be evenly spread if it were a fair system. If you had both conservative and liberal employees, without discriminating against the conservatives, you probably wouldn’t have that problem (you’d have biases, but not over-represented on one side, and outstanding situations can be handled on a case-by-case basis). However, the point is that there is significant evidence for company-wide policies to incorporate such biases that favour viewpoints of the political Left. Reasonable persons with politically Right viewpoints will be banned for expressing their opinion when extremist, harmful persons go unnoticed simply because they favour the political Left. That’s the position of conservatives, that if you elevate one viewpoint and suppress the other, then you’re no longer a “public forum.” It’s not at all that “they don’t get it” as this video portrays. You can agree or disagree with them, that’s another topic, but if you’re going to represent their viewpoint, do so accurately. All that this video showed is that the Verge doesn’t get it.

  37. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    Every moderation decision is done in a somewhat biased manner though, just because humans are doing the moderating. We can't help but be biased it's just how our brains work. So every platform moderates in a biased way.

  38. Mark Hancock

    Mark HancockMonth ago

    Several years ago I created a FB Group for News and Info for a town I lived in. Now it is Huge. My intend was to run it as an lightly moderated group with a simple set of rules. I have never had a complaint from FB but last year I decide to turn on moderation during the election to try to keep things non-political. Next thing I knew, I got a message from FB that content had been removed from the Group and since it was Moderated, if it happened again they would remove the Group. What a surprise, I quickly disabled Moderation for the Group.

  39. Yash Nagda

    Yash NagdaMonth ago

    If there are laws made like constitution and what is wrong and what is not and their is independent department which governs it. It could be possible that hate speech, violence promoting speeches can be regulated.

  40. Preśident Donald J. Trump

    Preśident Donald J. TrumpMonth ago

    Reform it so I can be back!

  41. David Cazares

    David CazaresMonth ago

    How's it like having a gimmick account impersonating a shamed president? I'm genuinely interested

  42. adudeisthebomb

    adudeisthebombMonth ago

    This is the best video the verge has made in a while

  43. Mike Bates

    Mike BatesMonth ago

    Props to Adi for being at The Verge for so long now & working on so much hard-hitting journalism. Thank you Adi!

  44. Tim

    TimMonth ago

    Better idea, how about monopoly busting. We had to do this in the past when oil, Ma Bell etc got so big, they were using their size to smash competition. Also, let's not take Google, Facebook etc. word on what's good for us. They are in the business of making money and will use any way they can to destroy competition. BREAK them up and let competition in. These big international companies will always have a reason why we should not touch them, and will use all their resources to convince us they are right.

  45. **

    **Month ago

    This is the verge right? Can you guys let me actually not accept cookies on your site thanks

  46. naijapikins

    naijapikinsMonth ago

    Who makes the rules for the rest of the world?

  47. naijapikins

    naijapikinsMonth ago

    A single section for the whole internet meant to guide the same people who require a whole 27 amendments to navigate life albeit imperfect? interesting.

  48. SanFranFan30

    SanFranFan30Month ago

    What's up with that clip with the potato?

  49. horia jm

    horia jmMonth ago

    nicely done video

  50. The Rodestarr

    The RodestarrMonth ago

    Why does Cruz say anything at all ? As an African, I’m completely baffled as to how that dude is allowed to do anything.

  51. Scott Jacobs

    Scott JacobsMonth ago

    I want a story on the Potato!

  52. It's ya boi Raid Shadow Legends

    It's ya boi Raid Shadow LegendsMonth ago

    The truth these days is labeled as misinformation on social media platforms. These platforms censor and ban one side and let the other side call for genocide and spread actual mis information on their counter parts

  53. KM

    KMMonth ago

    MSM publishes lies all the time, why should FB, Twitter and Google not get the same protection? 😂😂😂😂

  54. alenn mosses

    alenn mossesMonth ago

    When a single rule serves multiple purpose, its basically a two edged sword.

  55. Julius Smith

    Julius SmithMonth ago

    Every Internet post should include the digital signature of its author, so that reposting cannot (legally) anonymize the content - social media can easily implement this

  56. Yatharth Ipsum

    Yatharth IpsumMonth ago

    *American Internet

  57. Black Tiger

    Black TigerMonth ago

    Some people MUST BE silenced.

  58. Daniel Rios

    Daniel RiosMonth ago

    Are we going to ignore that Amy Klobucar has been getting potatoes the size of her head?

  59. Raphy Martinez

    Raphy MartinezMonth ago

    I don’t want anything taken down. I’d rather know who is a racist or a crazy person or whatever they are. Just because you don’t allow someone to post something, doesn’t mean they no longer exist. It doesn’t make the problem go away, just keeps me from knowing that the problem exists.

  60. Revatron Prime

    Revatron PrimeMonth ago

    I agree 👍

  61. El Tostado

    El TostadoMonth ago

    Improve privacy before anything. We know they won’t because that’s how’s these tech giants make their money.

  62. Elvin deSouza

    Elvin deSouzaMonth ago

    @Jean Kumik we have to establish a threshold. Personally, if I search for something on USlikes and it shows related ads, and those ads follow me to the USlikes mainpage,I don't mind. But when I search Google for stuff and it shows an effect in recommendations and ads, it feels like a huge breach of privacy. I don't mind certain types of data collection(good faith data collection), but others might be offended by the same

  63. FortNite KID

    FortNite KIDMonth ago

    @Jean Kumik Rightly said

  64. Jean Kumik

    Jean KumikMonth ago

    As we're all watching this on a free ad supported platform. Option B is to pay for internet services and have it break into the insanity of Netflix/Hulu/Disney+/HBOGo/CuriosityStream/Nebula/etc

  65. Jerry Shen

    Jerry ShenMonth ago

    its also how you and me enjoy services like email serivce providers for free

  66. Kamil Kozyra

    Kamil KozyraMonth ago

    Extremely insightful - thanks! :)

  67. vrancras

    vrancrasMonth ago

    Just stop making laws for everything.

  68. Ryukachoo

    RyukachooMonth ago

    2:12 Oh, he's back from Cancun?

  69. David Cazares

    David CazaresMonth ago

    I do not like that man Ted Cruz

  70. RestoreTheSnyderVerse

    RestoreTheSnyderVerseMonth ago

    lmao ted cruz is a joke

  71. WaQbwyAYt5hm HDuQx1lS

    WaQbwyAYt5hm HDuQx1lSMonth ago

    They want to go back to the 90s where all the information is controlled. They allowed people to talk and share information freely and they almost got a Hitler so now they want to put the genie back in the bottle.

  72. OX MONSTER

    OX MONSTERMonth ago

    Censorship and control from the corrupt governments

  73. Ben Greenwald

    Ben Greenwald2 hours ago

    MAGAT. Get educated.

  74. raw2029

    raw2029Month ago

    That's not the right question,it should be "why do governments interfere ?"

  75. El Tostado

    El TostadoMonth ago

    We need some type of regulation or else these giants media companies can go on without being checked in any way.

  76. Tyler

    TylerMonth ago

    What do you mean by interfere? The government is ever present in our lives from the day we're born.

  77. Dustin Parker

    Dustin ParkerMonth ago

    Maybe we wouldn't have such an issue if we would stop using terms like hate speech that have no laws attached to them and have no definition. Hate speech is being leveraged to enforce whatever rule is needed in the moment and has no meaningful value other than "you hurt my feelings". You can't enforce everyone's feelings.

  78. Henry Cullen

    Henry CullenMonth ago

    Maybe congress should stop outsourcing crime fighting to big tech and tackle it themselves

  79. Jensen Raylight

    Jensen RaylightMonth ago

    *Summary:* let's kill the messenger instead of finding & punishing the true criminal

  80. Techbasics

    TechbasicsMonth ago

    Politicians are very scared of internet in this polarized world, India has started it and polarized leaders across the world will gather together to curb freedom of any form that doesn't meet there ideology

  81. walspeed

    walspeedMonth ago

    TL:DR, Conservatives want to get rid of Section 230 altogether thinking it means they will be able to say whatever they want but in reality; it will likely have the opposite effect of sites being much faster to censor people promoting lies and hate speech since the site can be held liable. Democrats want to change the law to make it to where sites that do little to police misinformation can be held liable for the misinformation they spread such as Facebook and Twitter doing little to stop the spread of voting misinformation from the 2020 election, allowing the events to happen that led up to the Capitol riot. There's also the concern that repealing section 230, is purely a political move so that whoever is in power can control social media and the one thing preventing either side from doing it, is section 230.

  82. Nishith Joshi

    Nishith JoshiMonth ago

    So glad that India just went ahead and gave social media platforms 36 hrs to remove a post. If not then social media become liable for the content of the Post.

  83. AsHalt

    AsHaltMonth ago

    well at least it's not china...

  84. Sweet_Roll

    Sweet_RollMonth ago

    I like the intention of making internet a better place, but the internet is not just facebook and twitter. These boomers don't know enough about the internet.

  85. awannagannaful

    awannagannafulMonth ago

    Guaranteed this law will be changed not to get Facebook et al in trouble, but to enact harsh censorship of all dissenting thought and platforms, in most cases it will be small outlets to suffer.

  86. jake liu

    jake liuMonth ago

    230 should be removed, Social media become online censorship like China even worst.

  87. Jack

    JackMonth ago

    @walspeed they can make a law that mandates free speech on the internet

  88. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    @jake liu If they were liable for everything users post I guarantee you couldn't have even made this comment, or at least it would take a very very long time for it to be posted. USlikes would have to manually review it first because it would be the same as them saying it.

  89. jake liu

    jake liuMonth ago

    That is fine, they already doing that.

  90. walspeed

    walspeedMonth ago

    You do realize, if 230 is removed, sites will be liable for what their users say, meaning they will likely censor their sites even more since they are liable for what their users say or do.

  91. Dus Cast

    Dus CastMonth ago

    look everyone its the Verge a top tech company defending 230 how unexpected 😂

  92. Tyler

    TylerMonth ago

    They're a media company, and they're already liable for the things they publish. I also don't think this video showed clear-cut support.

  93. Jacob Kummer

    Jacob KummerMonth ago

    If anything they would be against it. They are not a social media website like Facebook or Twitter or USlikes, which is what this video is posted on...

  94. Gustavo Matias

    Gustavo MatiasMonth ago

    The rule 34 is being rewritten?

  95. konakon TV

    konakon TVMonth ago

    @Yorman Ortiz you lived in a cave or what ?

  96. Gustavo Matias

    Gustavo MatiasMonth ago

    @Deathrobloxian Ikr? its sad they changed the title

  97. Deathrobloxian

    DeathrobloxianMonth ago

    Wonder how many people in the future replies won't get it.

  98. Govind Goyal

    Govind GoyalMonth ago

    @Yorman Ortiz do u even know what rule 34 is 😂

  99. Yorman Ortiz

    Yorman OrtizMonth ago

    No rule 230 is

  100. jaffar1234

    jaffar1234Month ago

    It's funny, Trump is calling for the law to be repealed, But in fact the law should have been repealed due to Twitter and Facebook not taking action against Trump's transgressions for years

  101. Shrek Wazowski

    Shrek WazowskiMonth ago

    Ahhh we ARE getting close to Cyberpunk universe

  102. •Niks•Great

    •Niks•GreatMonth ago

    Social media is the fakest way to get social. 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Rip eng

  103. jkelleyrtp

    jkelleyrtpMonth ago

    This was actually a really good job, kudos.

  104. Ehsan Kia

    Ehsan KiaMonth ago

    There's so much misinformation and misunderstanding all over the internet about 230, thankfully the verge is one of the rare places that understand what the hell it's about.

  105. Errhka

    ErrhkaMonth ago

    The problem is that if you repeal this law, there is a likelihood that the internet will become more censored than ever before, as platforms will not want to be liable with anything questionable posted on their website (with blanket bans of certain content being more likely). If everyone is ok with this - fine, but I fear it is the most likely outcome even though it's an unintended one.

  106. Jongsun Suh

    Jongsun SuhMonth ago

    @Jinkeez1 Abolishing 230 would *favor* the entrenched big platforms, by making it more difficult for smaller alternatives to compete or even just operate. The video discusses this.

  107. Avengerie

    AvengerieMonth ago

    It is a good thing, because companies going into overdrive cracking down on "unwanted speech" will: a) harm their profits b) create tens of millions of forced refugee users (100s of millions globally), which will make alternative platforms, payment systems and server hosts financially feasible.

  108. Package Not Delivered

    Package Not DeliveredMonth ago

    @Jinkeez1 But then those most impacted aren't the companies but the end users.

  109. Jinkeez1

    Jinkeez1Month ago

    Tech companies have overstepped their boundaries into outright censorship and thus deserve to have 230 abolished.

  110. Pascal Costanza

    Pascal CostanzaMonth ago

    It's funny how you Americans seem to assume that there is currently no censorship happening. (For example, Facebook is censoring nudity, just as an example.)

  111. theloniousMac

    theloniousMacMonth ago

    Boy that word “fix” can be anything from an axe to a nuclear bomb depending on who is wielding it, and I know of precious few if any lawmakers, with the understanding of the nature, nuances, and technology of the internet necessary to “fix” it.

  112. john pardon

    john pardonMonth ago

    dang them potatoes gurl.

  113. Liam Collins

    Liam CollinsMonth ago

    klob will never not be funny to me

  114. ashskullz

    ashskullzMonth ago

    Rip

  115. Luigina Trotta

    Luigina TrottaMonth ago

    Allow free speech. Let future generations lead the internet. Protect user privacy and security. that's it.

  116. Tyler

    TylerMonth ago

    I like free speech too, but I'm not sure that every place is appropriate for it. If you get invited to a birthday party and run around saying the n-word, you would get kicked out. If you go to someone's facebook page and do it, I think it only makes sense that you could get kicked out of there too. Maybe the answer is to give people more control over the moderation of their pages, but full freedom of speech with no repercussions doesn't match our experience in physical life. Freedom of speech means the government can't limit your speech, not that individuals and companies can't treat you differently for it.

  117. Phantom66Games

    Phantom66GamesMonth ago

    Well there is always deep web

  118. Jerry Shen

    Jerry ShenMonth ago

    you mean the dark web?O.o

  119. ziguirayou

    ziguirayouMonth ago

    Did I just witnessed a 8 minute rant AGAINST freedom of speech?

  120. Steve Wonderbelt

    Steve WonderbeltMonth ago

    Why is arguing against repealing section 230 ranting against freedom of speech?

  121. An Audioslave

    An AudioslaveMonth ago

    Yes, yes you did. Sad how these people are so brainwashed and have zero idea how communism creeps in.

  122. IvanRSaldias

    IvanRSaldiasMonth ago

    Fix her potatoes!

  123. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    face?

  124. TempestuousD

    TempestuousDMonth ago

    Personally, I dont like how these rules affect us in the rest of the world

  125. Revatron Prime

    Revatron PrimeMonth ago

    @SR Productions yeah the US shouldn't be theory country to control the internet

  126. Dus Cast

    Dus CastMonth ago

    @SR Productions Internally in the US it’s being argued because people believe the US constitution should apply online. Unfortunately these platforms are now global and this could be an issue.

  127. SR Productions

    SR ProductionsMonth ago

    Agreed..the US has too much power over other countries and is becoming monopolistic of its power

  128. RestoreTheSnyderVerse

    RestoreTheSnyderVerseMonth ago

    you must be living in a cave

  129. LET4

    LET4Month ago

    US sets the precedence

  130. MABin

    MABinMonth ago

    boomers making rules about the internet.

  131. BroAnarchy

    BroAnarchyMonth ago

    @analogdistortion ok boom kid hoooooo didn't see that COMING, _DID YA????_

  132. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    @theloniousMac and what's more, most of the isms and hate etc is just people trying to annoy and troll and trigger the progressive weirdos for a laugh

  133. theloniousMac

    theloniousMacMonth ago

    We made the Internet, and it was a much nicer place until after the post boomer generations came along. Oh we had our arguments on USENET, private bulletin boards, Compuserve, Genie, AOL, and others, but it wasn’t the cesspool of palpable hatred it has become. We had this tendency to pick apart ideas instead of off the cuff meaningless attacks on groups of people.

  134. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    @Darth Plagus tee hee

  135. Darth Plagus

    Darth PlagusMonth ago

    @analogdistortion ok boomer

  136. Wil C-137

    Wil C-137Month ago

    Every time I see Ted Cruz I throw up in my mouth

  137. Brace110

    Brace110Month ago

    Ugh let congress deal with wars and health care, leave the internet to the internet.

  138. Katzelle3

    Katzelle3Month ago

    Where do you think war happens these days?

  139. omar velasquez

    omar velasquezMonth ago

    Wow seeing the internet get regulated throughout the years has been so interesting, like laws being passed on it and it changing due to those laws . Also just how people that are born now will have such a different experience then I ever did or will as they grow with the internet.

  140. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    @Nabil Silva Yeah so it's best to leave it alone

  141. Nabil Silva

    Nabil SilvaMonth ago

    @analogdistortion Any regulation would always favor big corps, since they have the most resources to spend to comply with the regulations and scale at the same time.

  142. Elements The Producer

    Elements The ProducerMonth ago

    Lol, I feel like we are in the 80s of the internet, like the coke wave in the 80s

  143. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    Funny how they're always in favour of the big corperations. The law I mean, but yes of course, Democrats too.

  144. Christian Risoli

    Christian RisoliMonth ago

    This is a nuanced problems and congress are far to tech illiterate to deal with them , this will not go well

  145. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    @Darth Plagus You really assume everyone for free speech is like that or are you joking? There's a large minority of freaks that somehow would think like that ya know?

  146. Darth Plagus

    Darth PlagusMonth ago

    @analogdistortion repealing 230 will strip freedoms from the little man and create an even more policed internet. All your Q and Stormfront friends will be silenced more aggressively.

  147. analogdistortion

    analogdistortionMonth ago

    So the big corperations win control against the little man once again. Thanks Democrats.

  148. Dennis Brännvall’s #1 Fan

    Dennis Brännvall’s #1 FanMonth ago

    Only 5 views in 7 minutes?

  149. M D

    M DMonth ago

    The Verge reappear in my subscription, strange problem with the algorithm of USlikes. I was sure that there over

  150. THETRUTHofYOUTUBE

    THETRUTHofYOUTUBEMonth ago

    Former president obama

  151. Српски патриота

    Српски патриотаMonth ago

    Obama was a populist weakling,did nothing positive and bombarded middle east.

  152. Orien Day

    Orien DayMonth ago

    even when someone has stopped being the president you still call them the president

  153. THETRUTHofYOUTUBE

    THETRUTHofYOUTUBEMonth ago

    @Josh Witte FORMER best president obama

  154. Josh Witte

    Josh WitteMonth ago

    "Best President in History Obama"

  155. Help Me Reach 10k With Subs

    Help Me Reach 10k With SubsMonth ago

    Congrats To" Everyone' Who is Early And who..found this 🍩.....!!

  156. apeshit clothing

    apeshit clothingMonth ago

    🍻

  157. Zizhang Cheng

    Zizhang ChengMonth ago

    Somebody need to be blocked! They deserve this.

  158. अंशुमान मिश्र Anshúmân Mishrã

    अंशुमान मिश्र Anshúmân MishrãMonth ago

    Better to be No Internet

  159. Darius Lezama

    Darius LezamaMonth ago

    Never thought i would see 1 minute ago on a Verge video

  160. Udit kaushal

    Udit kaushalMonth ago

    Security should be put on the forefront then other things can be considered .

  161. User

    UserMonth ago

    fun fact: nobody cares your first

  162. BroAnarchy

    BroAnarchyMonth ago

    fun fact: . . . . . . . . . . I Do.

  163. User

    UserMonth ago

    fun fact: 69 people can't be first...

  164. Vikram Prashanth

    Vikram PrashanthMonth ago

    👍🏽

  165. Martin H

    Martin HMonth ago

    First?