which was operating as model may have to warn its users about a sexual predator and one of the things the court said in that was because your own warning and theirs and you should have won and so that's your speech didn't have to do dangerous being the you're seeing results in that as that now we don't say what's missing from that is we never say we don't claim that the post arms anyone and why would we you know posting something doesn't army on its speaking all to use the filter much less opposed to high speeds now and the complaint here is i think plane is counsel acknowledges is entirely predicated on the ability of users to post in share information the court looks at for example twenty six of the complaint only allows users to quote share on social media a photo or video with their real life speed as it's now a pair of fifty three complaints similarly a as an internet provider or as a of bazillions hater of other messages there's not even an printing killer message alleged in this complaint well what the complaint says is and this is made clear by the reply that they don't want information published through the filter that's challenging our ability to provide that tool and allowing users to use it in courts of said for example the nd circuit in the arab v result of this specific content was not alleged to be harmful they brought a product defect claim and what the nd circuit held of burning the district court's ruling is what they're alternately challenging is grinder's ability to publish this information their parties the information in this case the geo location information is from the user their regulating what users can publish on the platform that's why the district court here said they're challenging the ability of users to use this filter which can be used for numerous save purposes on a plane on a train we provided examples of that there are directly regulating the ability of users to use that tool it is a neutral tool indisputable a and the after of providing that neutral tool under dire of other authorities is what is a publisher function the courts doesn't simply look at the content that's posted as to whether or not that content is harmful so for example in ruben's the court said that a publisher snapped as anything to encourage users to provide any rewards trophies etc verse speeding again snap hides warnings telling people not to speed using the app when is themselves of knowledge this in their complaint at paragraph thirty one they say you know even if snap does not actually encourage or rewards users or provide any trophies for speeding now if snap did do that it's not had it's own content that said you know go up to one hundred and fifty miles per hour and you'll get a trophy o war that would be snaps own content a c v a would not apply there because now creative accounting but the only thing that the complaint challenges and this is what the district court held these allegations of encouragement were just completely conclus neutralized people to share their own content then this here wouldn't apply there if we had to encourage people which trophies or rewards and they had shown that if we provided our own content for that that would be completely different and what the court said  looking two roommates it said a clever lawyer and this is from the roommates decision you can always argue that something the website operator did encourage the evil galut eat but in cases of enhancement by implication or development by inference the to the joe two versus my space case from the california court of appeal there the allegation was we were harmed offline as a result of an assault had nothing to do with the information exchanged online but what the court said is it doesn't matter if the information exchanged online is non tortious it doesn't matter if you're challenging a particular contest the question is under this he may argue challenging a publisher bunk shit that means that you are treating the party as a provider of rd party content the court said the fact that the information exchange is non tortious not harmful doesn't matter if the question is is the challenge to the websites activities treating them as a publisher in here clearly all we did was provided tool that allows users to publish content that's no different than inherit for example where the challenge was you provided geo location functionality the reason why the c v a still applies is because what this court and other courts of politics when the tool itself is neutral can be used for proper or improper purposes the c d a applies in back page for example from the st circuit the  court said quote claims that a website is silicates illegal conduct through its posting rules necessarily treat the website as a publisher or speaker in dire off the information posted under the allegations was illegal the content was illegal but the tool was neutral and what this court made clear and remains is that just because the tool is neutral that means that the ca protects  if the if the tool required people to post snaps at a particular speed or even let's say there was content from snapple encouraging people to do that that would be a different case the c d a in that case would not apply under roommates unsnap could be held liable for it's own content but when the challenge conduct is simply a neutral tool the c d a still wants and should just briefly address internet brands because i know they rely on that his body but there the challenge wasn't to  website with tools they're using on the website whereas here the district correctly said that their claim they're trying to prevent people from posting snaps of particular speeds that's regulating how people use a content neutral tool that's exactly what the c d s says you can't do it's regulating publication activity on the platform and that's what the c t a protects against and again with respect to the failure to clean the hair versus grindr case again that was a product defect case they regulate how people are using those tools that regulation means that the contents of that you're regulating content and just briefly again this notion that the content itself has to be somehow unlawful that construes the c d reports were removed content or to block content it's all a publisher function the content itself doesn't have to cause harm according to the plaintiff's theory the question is are you treating the website of the publisher and that you're trying to regulate a discussion of the new film school yes that's because the neutral tool that does not apply when the claim is about the provider's own speech the only time that the neutral tool is when we have these other types of  violates tort law it is illegal is illegal under tort law and the same way that this court how well that the questions that remain violated the fair housing act i think if you take a close look at that opinion i  our news outlets learned from a fission on for them to get rid of the beatles or that they needed to do something and one of the things we say that they needed to do is they need issue a warrant their own speech their own message that sa information and in dire off the challenge it was actually to the fact that they provided anonymous accounts recommended particular content to people based on algorithms and provided a notification and the point of they were saying those activities of the platform or what we're challenging and what the courts of those are all neutral in operation and they're protected by the c d a their publisher functions that's all i want to say all right all right thank you thank you your honor think that th