for damages under her claims for relieved invasion of privacy misappropriation of the right of publicity defamation and negligence i won't reiterate the details of the responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information provided to the internet or any other interactive computer service congress did not choose to create asked to lose immunity for interactive computer services but they created a certain category of immunity and when we looked at this case in negative and neutral and based on the number of positive the number of negatives of the number of neutral a color code was automatically given there was nothing approaching  sixty two questions and the answer in which here matchmaker was involved in whole in creating the of the answer to the questionnaire which form the gravel men of the actionable claim here today they created the answers that what is your living situation comprehensive way this website not only in part but in the whole created the concept the only content putting aside the essay questions for a moment that a member sang that's the difference or perhaps for volume the questions i mean if we were to write a rule drawing a line in the case and saying what is concentration what is my how would you ask how would you suggest we articulate it i would say that in those circumstances in which a internet service provider had created the very words upon which the underlying action was based in a comprehensive sense that choice answers right and the content now the content of the answers remember one of the answers was single and living with kids so one of our provisions for invasion of comparable circumstance in which one of the answers written by the website provided the underlying content for the the underlying grab them and for the cause of action then i think if it met that when you give i think the number is somewhere upwards in one hundred more than one hundred responses because there were multiple responses sixty of the multiple choice questions whatever is going to mean in the next just as well and judges and i clerks can post information on this particular website but they have multiple choice questions as i recall or at least they were asking for content is that content creation well you just appoint that would never give us content i mean i don't think a o l evaluate and matchmaker have ever seen an internet service provider that would not be a me and they would like they came limited fashion well because i think there's nothing that suggests that congress intended that they spoke in terms of in whole or in part content or development and i don't think that that means you go to positive negative right and neutral rating system i don't believe i think you can reach a standard by which a lack there is no content is my point it's a positive by the website gentry i think was finding a very limited rule that when you have a automatic grading system then you are not you going for you do fall within the questions the questions themselves and some content was important in doing what think worth studying if you can get it they provided a series of quite answers that were interesting that would make people be interested in the service and become argument free notification but after your f your client had received notice that this was offensive and false information isn't there a tribal issue of fact i'm reckless disregard for that period of time where they have one hundred twenty to take into consideration what impact there might be on speech by allowing the matter to go forward and go to trial and the fact of matter is that it's a one one day which is given the thousands and thousands and thousands of profiles that we pose yes runners in reverse order let's not forget that this is a company that had charms and regulations that prohibited the release of street addresses phone numbers sexually provocative information the risk of harm was known to them once we meet the knowledge of falsity by the phone call by the way on saturday there was a service provider at and that's maker who took that phone call on saturday she told of the web person oh we have to do more investigating we can take that website down even though they have the capacity to after seven o'clock at night not monday morning so i do believe frankly i also believe that there is substantial clear and convincing evidence that with the bounce back e mail as early as october twenty three they were on notice that there were serious questions as to the authenticity of the website this court has adopted the standards of the the accuracy and defendant did not act reasonably to dispel those doubts or was purposely avoiding the truth i think they chose not to act quickly i think are substantial evidence golden gate says there is a particularly strong privacy interest in avoiding the disclosure of residential aggressed finally they could have conversations starters they can have clever and spic e content but it's content they chose to make their website perhaps more attractive by providing all the answers council said this would induce people to become pay members and if they chose to do it to get paying members then i'm we are entitled to hold them for the content that they put out finally although i'm not running away from my view of the gentry case i