> Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". So here's the explanation. > Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars'

> Again - please show me where I argued that this bill "is ok" or is "justified". So here's the explanation. > Okay, there is a huge detail missing from Ars' report, and a lot of reports about this, that is key here. You wrote here that there is a huge detail missing that is key. Implying that this missing detail, being so huge, has a change on the proposed law. There is no huge detail at all. Without your clarification they were drastically down on free-speech, with the detail they are drastically clamping down on free speech. Writing what you wrote implies that if people understood the detail it would be a different situation and there isn't an issue there. That isn't the case. The detail you were referring to was people receiving any payment. Substacks receive compensation, blogs with ads receive compensation, people with afiliate links receive compensation. Saying all of these people have to register with the government first before criticizing it is horrible and just as horrible if it were all bloggers. That is not a critical detail at all. It's like saying the law comes out and then someone runs up and says "hey everyone is missing a critical detail, it's only restricting people of a specific ethnicity from criticizing the government". That is not a critical detail at all and has no bearing on anything anyone posted. No different than positing "it's only restricting people wearing blue jeans, not everyone." That is not a critical detail, it's an irrelevant detail. And saying it's critical implies that people now need to interpret the law differently an implicitly says it's not as negative as people are saying it is. All of those are wrong. That's why everyone who is responding to you is saying exactly what they are - because your post is implying (unintentionally apparently) that that detail changes how horrible the proposed law is.