Danai Nhando
Role at the time: Human rights lawyer and public-interest technologist
Statement summary
Nhando criticizes Google's Chromebook safety approach and argues that first-party design and safety representations should remain subject to accountability.
“It should not immunize platforms for what they themselves say, nor for the design decisions they themselves make. ... A company that markets Chromebooks as simple, powerful, and secure for US schoolchildren may have built that technology without adequate child safety as any part of the design equation as a calculation, not an oversight.”
Nhando argues that first-party design and representations deserve scrutiny. Her predictions are analysis; the article predates M.C.'s voluntary dismissal and must not establish its current status.
Why we used this label
The reference point is whether Google should bear responsibility for harmful content children access on school-issued Chromebooks. Nhando argues that Section 230 should not immunize platforms "for the design decisions they themselves make" and writes that a company marketing Chromebooks as secure "may have built that technology without adequate child safety" in its design, which condemns the product-design and safety approach at issue. Her commentary is not a finding that a particular claim succeeds under Section 230. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because she writes "may have", but her argument is that the Google cases are compelling and that safety was not part of the design.