4 ms·
I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost ever
by noduerme 4y ago
I don't know how to judge a bill, but I read this, and it seems that the intent is to broadly ban everything first and then carve out exceptions for almost everything except for a single category: Direct messaging (^B) between MORE than two users for non-creative, non-commercial, non-educational purposes.
AKA forums and memes.
Is that a fair analysis?
[edit] : per privacy advocates - no, I don't think it's okay to start with a law that bans everything and carve out exceptions; obviously, that way lies totalitarianism. I'm just trying to get a handle on the immediate intent. There's a boolean at work here. I guess someone was like, "hey, why chip away at forums and meme sites when we can just ban everything in theory, let most of it slide, and work back toward totalitarianism from there with the law already in place?"
[edit2] HN appears to be totally banhammered under this since /the mods/ don't post the news.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> HN appears to be totally banhammered under this since /the mods/ don’t post the news. Does HN have more than 5 million user accounts?
- jandrese 4y agoI guarantee that there are more than 5 million bot accounts alone.
- dahart 4y agoOoh I’m curious to hear more. Do you have inside knowledge, or see widespread evidence of bots? I’ve only seen perhaps a few here and there, almost always downvoted to oblivion.
- judge2020 4y agoIt's not just bots posting, but other bots upvoting those posts. If it can get on the bottom of the front page for even 5 minutes, that's probably x > 1000 clicks.
- EGreg 4y agoWhat does it matter whether it has more than 5 million accounts? Why not 50K accounts?
- _heimdall 4y agoBecause every law we write is ultimately arbitrary. Lines have to be drawn through massive swaths of gray area, those lines are entirely arbitrary and should be a sign that making laws like this is pointless. The 90s Era gun ban that Biden was so proud of is a perfect example. They had to include so many caveats and arbitrary descriptions of what makes a gun an "assault rifle" that manufacturers just dodged the rules with tweaked rifle designs. Something as small as a thumb hole in the grip made a gun legal because of how specific the law had to be. In this case, what stops a social media company from coming up with some business model where a child company is spun up for every 4.9m users? You could argue its more like Mastodon, a decentralized network that just happens to use the same proprietary protocol, app, and is owned by the same parent Corp.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoMarginalium: Some laws are arbitrary, not all. They may all be contingent, which is different from arbitrary. Ultimately, law is a prudential determination of moral principle.
- _heimdall 4y agoThe distinction between arbitrary and contingent is very muddy in a legal sense where arbitrary has a specific meaning related to laws and court decisions. The two relevant definitions of arbitrary are: > based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something > law : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law A law itself fits the first definition. At best, a law is written by a tiny minority of the population but with the intent of best reflecting the majority opinion or preference. I'd be really interested to hear an example of a law that is based on necessity or intrinsic nature, though maybe there are a few! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
- pyuser583 4y agoIt seems they’re worried about peer to peer interactions. My experience regulating my daughters internet access is that interactions with other kids have the highest potential for toxicity. They seem ok with kids passively consuming a stream of adult generated content. They’re also excluding SaaS which just emulates desktop software. I think that’s about right.
- ipaddr 4y agoKids can be mean to each other, now or in your day. Next they ban kids from talking to each other in person or having friends. Is that the life you want for your daughter?
- MacsHeadroom 4y agoGuess we should ban all teens from stack overflow, LinkedIn, and hacker news because kids might have toxic interactions online if we don't. Let's also not mention how the only way to reliably do this is to require identity verification from all adults. Get ready to scan your drivers license to post on hacker news and every other site (except traditional news sites apparently).
- frob 4y agoUtah is small enough that some sites may just geoblock Utah. I know if I had to choose between collecting every user's ID ever and just adding a block list, I'd go with the second.
- pyuser583 4y agoHow do websites handle under 13s? Blocking the United States?
- pyuser583 4y agoI would support this. Downvote away.
- EGreg 4y agoApparently videoconferencing with kids is AOK while chats are not?
- xg15 4y ago> (F) interactive gaming, virtual gaming, or an online service, that allows the creation and uploading of content for the purpose of interactive gaming, edutainment, or associated entertainment, Doesn't this loophole even defeat their own hidden agenda? Almost every online game today features a chat function.
- prox 4y agoI think Discord even passes that.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 4y agoSeems that forums are exempt, look: content that is generated by an account holder, or uploaded to or shared on the 270 platform by an account holder, that may be encountered by another account holder;
- prox 4y agoWe believe something first and then we add our reasoning for it. That is what it sounds like. Which seems appropriate for a religious state like Utah.