4 ms·

> I also don't get where the "eliminate anonymous web browsing" in the title comes from. If anything it will make it less likely for sites to track you. Presum

by k1t 4y ago

> I also don't get where the "eliminate anonymous web browsing" in the title comes from. If anything it will make it less likely for sites to track you. Presumably the author is assuming that websites would prefer to offer no functionality at all to age-unverified visitors than to offer the child experience. In such a world, every website would presumably require you to login (to prove your age) before offering even basic functionality. With such a system, private/incognito browsing would be obsolete.

paxys 4y ago
Which is a weird thought process. Would a site rather get rid of 99% of its user base overnight (by making them go through identity/age verification) or change some basic privacy policies to be compliant with the law?
- svnt 4y ago
  I think I’d really enjoy competing with those who force logging in for viewing a website.
- VLM 4y ago
  In the usual submarine fashion the actual text of the bill includes "privacy, safety, and well-being". So its rather unlikely that political censorship will be enforced via the privacy clause, but everyone wants to "save the children" so there will be massive government censorship via the "safety and well-being" clause.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  We had the same complaints when GDPR was starting to gain steam: "Surely websites would rather just 'go Galt' and shut down than lift a finger to comply with any regulation!" In fact, that's a pretty standard (and IMO ridiculous) talking point from all kinds of businesses when it comes to regulation. We'd rather stop making money than comply with new laws! I mean, 1. if respecting user privacy means you actually have to shut your doors, well... bye. The web is probably a better place without such a site. And, 2. that's almost never the case. As soon as the regulation takes effect, companies all of a sudden find ways to comply and go about their business making money. It's all knee-jerk complaining.

by k1t 4y ago

paxys 4y ago

Which is a weird thought process. Would a site rather get rid of 99% of its user base overnight (by making them go through identity/age verification) or change some basic privacy policies to be compliant with the law?

svnt 4y ago
I think I’d really enjoy competing with those who force logging in for viewing a website.
VLM 4y ago
In the usual submarine fashion the actual text of the bill includes "privacy, safety, and well-being". So its rather unlikely that political censorship will be enforced via the privacy clause, but everyone wants to "save the children" so there will be massive government censorship via the "safety and well-being" clause.
ryandrake 4y ago
We had the same complaints when GDPR was starting to gain steam: "Surely websites would rather just 'go Galt' and shut down than lift a finger to comply with any regulation!" In fact, that's a pretty standard (and IMO ridiculous) talking point from all kinds of businesses when it comes to regulation. We'd rather stop making money than comply with new laws! I mean, 1. if respecting user privacy means you actually have to shut your doors, well... bye. The web is probably a better place without such a site. And, 2. that's almost never the case. As soon as the regulation takes effect, companies all of a sudden find ways to comply and go about their business making money. It's all knee-jerk complaining.