7 ms·

I worked at a go kart racing track when I was a teen and the company installed something called "governors" that would limit the speed at which the go karts cou

I worked at a go kart racing track when I was a teen and the company installed something called "governors" that would limit the speed at which the go karts could go. The governors had a remote control which allowed an operator to selectively limit the speed of each individual go kart. As a 14 year old, if someone did a slight playful bump into another racer, I would govern them. It's the first instance of "power" I had over others. And.., I abused it for the "good". This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing a democratic pushback mechanism in this bill, and I think this is a disaster. This is also being said in the context that the most voted petition in Canadian history is e-4701, which is a vote of no confidence.

99_00 3y ago
>This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. What's the button in case of this legislation?
- TriangleEdge 3y ago
  The button is censorship.
  - civicduty 3y ago
    It's not censorship, it's age verification. You can still access this stuff if you can prove you're an adult. Same as how children aren't allowed to buy the same material in stores. It's still being published, there's no censorship.
    - bccdee 3y ago
      Read the article ( `–` ) > The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to “material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization” or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency.
      - 99_00 3y ago
        Explain how this is censorship.
        rstat1 3y ago
        You want an explanation about how a law intended to block access to something is censorship? Really?
        99_00 3y ago
        I guess your right, it is censorship. And so are laws against tobacco advertising. As are laws in Canada against hate speech, harrasment missgendering and Holocaust denial. I guess censorship gets a bad wrap.
        bccdee 3y ago
        It's silly to contrast a narrow restriction on speech like "you can be charged for making statements which constitute harassment" or "this specific product cannot be advertised in certain ways" with a massive restriction on speech like "any website that does not check users' IDs can be blocked at an ISP level if it is found to have content on it which is not appropriate for children." If you like free speech, am I "free" to "speak" loud screams directly into your ear? Am I free to speak lies to you about the safety features in my airplane, when you're buying tickets? Free speech absolutism is a childish position; what crosses a line is subjective. I think any reasonable person would agree that this internet blocking regime crosses a line and unfairly stifles people's ability to communicate. Not every public space should be obliged to be child-appropriate; obscenity laws are best left in the 20th century.
        99_00 3y ago
        When a kid can walk into a 18+ movie showing at a theater or buy a porn magazine from the corner store without proof of age you'll have an argument. Until then you're advocating for the continuation of a a special exemption for online porn sites, which are worse than adult movies and magazines because they are known and habitual hosts of child sexual abuse materials, non-consensual porn, child and adult sex trafficking victims.
    - natoliniak 3y ago
      > any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available so basically, the internet. > Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. So yes, censorship under the cloak of "age verification" and "protecting kids". We have heard it all before. I'm surprised they didn't somehow stuff the "terrorism" angle in there as well.
      - 99_00 3y ago
        >At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. It hasn't happened with any other censorship bill Canada has passed. This includes laws on pronoun use: Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained >through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
        bccdee 3y ago
        That's not a censorship bill, that's an anti-harassment bill. Harassment is illegal everywhere: I'm not free to follow you around calling you an asshole. I could get charged for that, especially if you're my employee, tenant, or in the presence of other exacerbating factors. Canadian hate law says I'm not free to follow you around making disparaging comments about your race. C-16 expands that to say that I'm not allowed to follow you around disparaging your gender identity. That's it. This bill, conversely, gives the government explicit power to block websites that host content that is not child-appropriate. Completely different.
    - happyopossum 3y ago
      Requiring an onerous age verification scheme provided by government approved vendors is a lot closer to censorship than it isn't. Say you post stuff to your own blog, and sometimes use colorful language. A parent decides to report you to the regulatory agency, and now you have 20 days to do whatever they demand you do to remediate, or else your site will be blocked at the ISP level.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        That's not even the half of it. In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity. Classic chilling effects. If you're in the closet because you come from a religious family or have a religious boss, can you risk some random site or government bureaucracy getting hacked and outing you? Strong anonymity is essential for free expression. Then the requirement to identify yourself is friction, so sites will want to avoid it, which can only be accomplished through censorship. Ordinary sites not solely focused on X-rated content will be "moderated" down to the level of children, even when they have adult audiences, because they don't want to be locked behind the porn filter. Instead of having diverse communities tailored to all different kinds of people and ideas, you bifurcate the world into nerfed risk-averse corporate censorship and explicit smut. The only place you're allowed to have an adult conversation is Pornhub, which is not exactly known for quality intellectual discourse.
        tzs 3y ago
        > In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity I don't see any reason age verification has to tie your identity to your activity. It should be possible with modern cryptographic techniques to make a system whereby the service that checks your age doesn't find out what site the check is for, and that site doesn't find out who you are.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        There are two possibilities. One is you get a unique token which can be tied back to your identity by someone who compromises the issuing service, so if they get compromised you're screwed. The other is you get a generic token or one that otherwise can't be tied back to a specific identity, in which case the token leaks and there is no way to trace back who is leaking it, creating a generic bypass of the whole system.
- bonestamp2 3y ago
  The button is: loss of privacy and anonymity for everyone, even those who the law is not suppose to be targeting.
citrusybread 3y ago
does that really shock you though? e-4701 has less to do with the actual popularity of the parties or the system than it does with the fact that we're 8 years in with a fairly progressive leader. c.f. the annual anti-Trudeau demonstrations that are astroturfed (yellow vests, "freedom convoy 2022", united we roll, etc). This system didn't exist when Harper was PM or anyone before it; and we're hardly at Mulroney level of discontent. edit: also... the bill in question is opposed by the Liberal party at large (the ones who this petition oppose). it's mainly being pushed by the Conservatives and the Bloc (which makes for an odd union already) as well as the NDP (which pushes it completely into nutty territory of voting patterns). and it was introduced in the Senate - where most Senators do not have party affiliation.
winter_blue 3y ago
> the most voted petition in Canadian history is e-4701, which is a vote of no confidence Most Liberal Party members voted against this bill (S-210 [1]). Support for this bill comes from the remaining parties, ie: (1) the Conservative Party, (2) the NDP (ie Canada’s semi-socialist progressive party), and (3) Bloc Quebocois (Quebec’s nationalist party). e-4701 [2] is a petition introduced by a conservative. Conservatives in Canada have a vested interest in pushing out Justin Trudeau, so there are no surprises there. [1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609 https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609 [2] https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4701 https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Peti...
tzs 3y ago
> This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Z...
- halfcat 3y ago
  Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
  - some_random 3y ago
    SPE was bullshit, Zimbardo directed participants to get the outcome he wanted.
  - Tanoc 3y ago
    The Stanford Prison Experiment has been discredited and debunked for almost a decade now. It's interesting to me how little attention the discrediting got and how many people still point to it as a real unguided trial because of that.
    - whythre 3y ago
      I think part of Stanford’s hardiness is due to the fact that it ‘feels true.’ We have all had our chains yanked by petty tyrants… even if the science was rotten. You are right about it not being properly discredited, though- I remember it being featured and commonly cited in textbooks; something that big and ‘influential’ is going to take a long time to die.
      - red-iron-pine 3y ago
        sure it feels true... but are we sure that's not just a US or Western thing? is that just a low-level, client-facing role thing? plus it's role-playing a prison, where legit, actually-murdered-a-bunch-of-people are locked up in real life, and they play real games -- and guards play them back. Tell people to roleplay a group of people who are violently anti-social, and another group to role play the people who have to keep them in line (also violently) and the participants fall back on what they think the roles do and how they act. just like with Freud, there may be some slivers of truth, but there is too much untestable, non-transferable bunk that comes with it; you can't call that science.
alephnerd 3y ago
This proposed law, and similar ones across the English speaking work (Australia, UK, NZ, US) are because of lobbying by Baroness Beeban Kidron [0] for a decade. An earlier comment of mine: Baroness Beeban Kidron has been lobbying for stringent anti-CSAM measures in tech for years [0]. She's lead a major pressure campaign in the US, Canada, and the UK for years [1]. Her charity 5Rights and WeProtect both have been able to back Labour and the Tories so she's able to lobby across the aisles. It doesn't hurt that the publishing company her parents founded (Pluto Press) has a strong niche in the political space. The Molly Russell suicide also played a role [2], which she leveraged to highlight the need for restrictive anti-CSAM measures, especially as it became a top tabloid story in the UK. [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/british-baroness-online-safety-laws-00101854 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/british-baroness-on...
- whythre 3y ago
  A crusader… hard to combat someone like that. I am sure she is convinced all her meddling is making the world a better place.
everforward 3y ago
My underlying issue with the mechanism here is the use of affirmative defenses from "Organizations (broadly defined under the Criminal Code) can rely on three potential defences: The organization instituted a “prescribed age-verification method” to limit access. It would be up to the government to determine what methods qualify with due regard for reliability and privacy. There is a major global business of vendors that sell these technologies and who are vocal proponents of this kind of legislation. The organization can make the case that there is “legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.” The organization took steps required to limit access after having received a notification from the enforcement agency (likely the CRTC)." (not quoted due to long lines and lack of line-wrapping in preformatted blocks) Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The accuser does not have to prove that the accused didn't implement age-verification, or that the use was not educational. The accuser only has to prove the presence of nude imagery (which is easy), and the accused then has to generate a case on how their age-verification is sufficient or their usage is educational (which is hard). The burden of proof and work required thereby, rests almost entirely on the accused. The balance of effort required is heavily skewed. It would also prevent any attempts to get a summary judgement prior to the trial, at least in the US. In the US, a summary judgement is only possible when the facts don't support the case. I.e. if we presume everything the plaintiff claims is true, it's still not a violation of the law. Imagine someone says that you wearing purple was an assault on them; you could likely get a summary judgement because even if you were wearing purple and that caused them some trauma, it doesn't rise to the legal level of assault. The facts are irrelevant, because the entire case is wrong. That doesn't work here, because the only thing the law cares about is whether nude imagery exists. In order to assert an affirmative defense you have to launch a defense, which requires a trial. There is no earlier point where you could say "hey, we're clearly a sex education site because x, y and z". Imagine a sex education website. They very likely have indisputable nude content on their site. They're now in a situation where anyone in the country can meet a very low cost bar (find a nude image), and cause them to have to mount a difficult and expensive defense (prove one of the affirmative defenses at trial). The law doesn't require the plaintiff to prove or even identify the affirmative defenses that don't apply. This law would be much better if the burden of proving that provider did not implement age verification, has not resolved any issues pointed out, and is not educational fell on the plaintiff. Summary judgements could be back in play; the judge could look at the evidence and say "even if I assume what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove the site isn't educational" and toss the case before the defendant has to build a whole case. In my greater opinion, I don't think children accessing sexual content is a big enough issue to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. I think ideally children wouldn't be exposed to pornography until they're old enough to contextualize the content into a coherent world view (e.g. the BDSM community takes a lot of care around consent and emotional well being that is sometimes not obvious from pornography tailored to the market). That being said, I think the "damage" done by seeing it earlier than one should is too low to justify this dramatic of a response.

99_00 3y ago

>This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. What's the button in case of this legislation?

TriangleEdge 3y ago
The button is censorship.
- civicduty 3y ago
  It's not censorship, it's age verification. You can still access this stuff if you can prove you're an adult. Same as how children aren't allowed to buy the same material in stores. It's still being published, there's no censorship.
  - bccdee 3y ago
    Read the article ( `–` ) > The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to “material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization” or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency.
    - 99_00 3y ago
      Explain how this is censorship.
      - rstat1 3y ago
        You want an explanation about how a law intended to block access to something is censorship? Really?
        99_00 3y ago
        I guess your right, it is censorship. And so are laws against tobacco advertising. As are laws in Canada against hate speech, harrasment missgendering and Holocaust denial. I guess censorship gets a bad wrap.
        bccdee 3y ago
        It's silly to contrast a narrow restriction on speech like "you can be charged for making statements which constitute harassment" or "this specific product cannot be advertised in certain ways" with a massive restriction on speech like "any website that does not check users' IDs can be blocked at an ISP level if it is found to have content on it which is not appropriate for children." If you like free speech, am I "free" to "speak" loud screams directly into your ear? Am I free to speak lies to you about the safety features in my airplane, when you're buying tickets? Free speech absolutism is a childish position; what crosses a line is subjective. I think any reasonable person would agree that this internet blocking regime crosses a line and unfairly stifles people's ability to communicate. Not every public space should be obliged to be child-appropriate; obscenity laws are best left in the 20th century.
        99_00 3y ago
        When a kid can walk into a 18+ movie showing at a theater or buy a porn magazine from the corner store without proof of age you'll have an argument. Until then you're advocating for the continuation of a a special exemption for online porn sites, which are worse than adult movies and magazines because they are known and habitual hosts of child sexual abuse materials, non-consensual porn, child and adult sex trafficking victims.
  - natoliniak 3y ago
    > any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available so basically, the internet. > Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. So yes, censorship under the cloak of "age verification" and "protecting kids". We have heard it all before. I'm surprised they didn't somehow stuff the "terrorism" angle in there as well.
    - 99_00 3y ago
      >At best, this is regulatory capture for the current tech giants, at worst, basically ability to hand pick who gets to see what sites. It hasn't happened with any other censorship bill Canada has passed. This includes laws on pronoun use: Canada’s gender identity rights Bill C-16 explained >through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identi...
      - bccdee 3y ago
        That's not a censorship bill, that's an anti-harassment bill. Harassment is illegal everywhere: I'm not free to follow you around calling you an asshole. I could get charged for that, especially if you're my employee, tenant, or in the presence of other exacerbating factors. Canadian hate law says I'm not free to follow you around making disparaging comments about your race. C-16 expands that to say that I'm not allowed to follow you around disparaging your gender identity. That's it. This bill, conversely, gives the government explicit power to block websites that host content that is not child-appropriate. Completely different.
  - happyopossum 3y ago
    Requiring an onerous age verification scheme provided by government approved vendors is a lot closer to censorship than it isn't. Say you post stuff to your own blog, and sometimes use colorful language. A parent decides to report you to the regulatory agency, and now you have 20 days to do whatever they demand you do to remediate, or else your site will be blocked at the ISP level.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      That's not even the half of it. In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity. Classic chilling effects. If you're in the closet because you come from a religious family or have a religious boss, can you risk some random site or government bureaucracy getting hacked and outing you? Strong anonymity is essential for free expression. Then the requirement to identify yourself is friction, so sites will want to avoid it, which can only be accomplished through censorship. Ordinary sites not solely focused on X-rated content will be "moderated" down to the level of children, even when they have adult audiences, because they don't want to be locked behind the porn filter. Instead of having diverse communities tailored to all different kinds of people and ideas, you bifurcate the world into nerfed risk-averse corporate censorship and explicit smut. The only place you're allowed to have an adult conversation is Pornhub, which is not exactly known for quality intellectual discourse.
      - tzs 3y ago
        > In order to have age verification, you need identity verification, i.e. tying your identity to your activity I don't see any reason age verification has to tie your identity to your activity. It should be possible with modern cryptographic techniques to make a system whereby the service that checks your age doesn't find out what site the check is for, and that site doesn't find out who you are.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        There are two possibilities. One is you get a unique token which can be tied back to your identity by someone who compromises the issuing service, so if they get compromised you're screwed. The other is you get a generic token or one that otherwise can't be tied back to a specific identity, in which case the token leaks and there is no way to trace back who is leaking it, creating a generic bypass of the whole system.
bonestamp2 3y ago
The button is: loss of privacy and anonymity for everyone, even those who the law is not suppose to be targeting.

citrusybread 3y ago

does that really shock you though? e-4701 has less to do with the actual popularity of the parties or the system than it does with the fact that we're 8 years in with a fairly progressive leader. c.f. the annual anti-Trudeau demonstrations that are astroturfed (yellow vests, "freedom convoy 2022", united we roll, etc). This system didn't exist when Harper was PM or anyone before it; and we're hardly at Mulroney level of discontent. edit: also... the bill in question is opposed by the Liberal party at large (the ones who this petition oppose). it's mainly being pushed by the Conservatives and the Bloc (which makes for an odd union already) as well as the NDP (which pushes it completely into nutty territory of voting patterns). and it was introduced in the Senate - where most Senators do not have party affiliation.

winter_blue 3y ago

> the most voted petition in Canadian history is e-4701, which is a vote of no confidence Most Liberal Party members voted against this bill (S-210 [1]). Support for this bill comes from the remaining parties, ie: (1) the Conservative Party, (2) the NDP (ie Canada’s semi-socialist progressive party), and (3) Bloc Quebocois (Quebec’s nationalist party). e-4701 [2] is a petition introduced by a conservative. Conservatives in Canada have a vested interest in pushing out Justin Trudeau, so there are no surprises there. [1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609 https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/609 [2] https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4701 https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Peti...

tzs 3y ago

> This being said, I have a belief that if you give someone a button to ruin someones life, some people will push the button with thoughtless abandon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Z...

halfcat 3y ago
Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
- some_random 3y ago
  SPE was bullshit, Zimbardo directed participants to get the outcome he wanted.
- Tanoc 3y ago
  The Stanford Prison Experiment has been discredited and debunked for almost a decade now. It's interesting to me how little attention the discrediting got and how many people still point to it as a real unguided trial because of that.
  - whythre 3y ago
    I think part of Stanford’s hardiness is due to the fact that it ‘feels true.’ We have all had our chains yanked by petty tyrants… even if the science was rotten. You are right about it not being properly discredited, though- I remember it being featured and commonly cited in textbooks; something that big and ‘influential’ is going to take a long time to die.
    - red-iron-pine 3y ago
      sure it feels true... but are we sure that's not just a US or Western thing? is that just a low-level, client-facing role thing? plus it's role-playing a prison, where legit, actually-murdered-a-bunch-of-people are locked up in real life, and they play real games -- and guards play them back. Tell people to roleplay a group of people who are violently anti-social, and another group to role play the people who have to keep them in line (also violently) and the participants fall back on what they think the roles do and how they act. just like with Freud, there may be some slivers of truth, but there is too much untestable, non-transferable bunk that comes with it; you can't call that science.

alephnerd 3y ago

This proposed law, and similar ones across the English speaking work (Australia, UK, NZ, US) are because of lobbying by Baroness Beeban Kidron [0] for a decade. An earlier comment of mine: Baroness Beeban Kidron has been lobbying for stringent anti-CSAM measures in tech for years [0]. She's lead a major pressure campaign in the US, Canada, and the UK for years [1]. Her charity 5Rights and WeProtect both have been able to back Labour and the Tories so she's able to lobby across the aisles. It doesn't hurt that the publishing company her parents founded (Pluto Press) has a strong niche in the political space. The Molly Russell suicide also played a role [2], which she leveraged to highlight the need for restrictive anti-CSAM measures, especially as it became a top tabloid story in the UK. [0] - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/british-baroness-online-safety-laws-00101854 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/14/british-baroness-on...

whythre 3y ago
A crusader… hard to combat someone like that. I am sure she is convinced all her meddling is making the world a better place.

everforward 3y ago

My underlying issue with the mechanism here is the use of affirmative defenses from "Organizations (broadly defined under the Criminal Code) can rely on three potential defences: The organization instituted a “prescribed age-verification method” to limit access. It would be up to the government to determine what methods qualify with due regard for reliability and privacy. There is a major global business of vendors that sell these technologies and who are vocal proponents of this kind of legislation. The organization can make the case that there is “legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.” The organization took steps required to limit access after having received a notification from the enforcement agency (likely the CRTC)." (not quoted due to long lines and lack of line-wrapping in preformatted blocks) Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. The accuser does not have to prove that the accused didn't implement age-verification, or that the use was not educational. The accuser only has to prove the presence of nude imagery (which is easy), and the accused then has to generate a case on how their age-verification is sufficient or their usage is educational (which is hard). The burden of proof and work required thereby, rests almost entirely on the accused. The balance of effort required is heavily skewed. It would also prevent any attempts to get a summary judgement prior to the trial, at least in the US. In the US, a summary judgement is only possible when the facts don't support the case. I.e. if we presume everything the plaintiff claims is true, it's still not a violation of the law. Imagine someone says that you wearing purple was an assault on them; you could likely get a summary judgement because even if you were wearing purple and that caused them some trauma, it doesn't rise to the legal level of assault. The facts are irrelevant, because the entire case is wrong. That doesn't work here, because the only thing the law cares about is whether nude imagery exists. In order to assert an affirmative defense you have to launch a defense, which requires a trial. There is no earlier point where you could say "hey, we're clearly a sex education site because x, y and z". Imagine a sex education website. They very likely have indisputable nude content on their site. They're now in a situation where anyone in the country can meet a very low cost bar (find a nude image), and cause them to have to mount a difficult and expensive defense (prove one of the affirmative defenses at trial). The law doesn't require the plaintiff to prove or even identify the affirmative defenses that don't apply. This law would be much better if the burden of proving that provider did not implement age verification, has not resolved any issues pointed out, and is not educational fell on the plaintiff. Summary judgements could be back in play; the judge could look at the evidence and say "even if I assume what you're saying is true, that doesn't prove the site isn't educational" and toss the case before the defendant has to build a whole case. In my greater opinion, I don't think children accessing sexual content is a big enough issue to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. I think ideally children wouldn't be exposed to pornography until they're old enough to contextualize the content into a coherent world view (e.g. the BDSM community takes a lot of care around consent and emotional well being that is sometimes not obvious from pornography tailored to the market). That being said, I think the "damage" done by seeing it earlier than one should is too low to justify this dramatic of a response.