2 ms·

Then they can deal with those "non mainstream" sites next or adapt their regulation? I don't understand the criticism of "they can just do <x>" because it's tru

• supergarfield 3y ago
  Some laws are much easier to evade than others, and some laws have especially bad side effects when evaded. (A law about e.g. requiring a certain type of government certification before a large construction project can be undertaken, for instance, would be far harder to evade than this one, and "they can just do <x>" would probably be a bad objection) Using non mainstream sites instead seems like a realistic way people are going to skirt this law, and those are very hard to regulate without other unpleasant side effects on Internet freedom. I think it's a reasonable concern to raise.
• richbell 3y ago
  Playing a slow and ineffective cat-and-mouse game seems like a waste of time. Imposing a burden on a handful of mainstream websites that already invest significantly into "safety" will push people into sites that are less able or willing to do so. Unlike the target of most other regulations or laws, it is trivial to find and browse new websites and there is (almost) no cost or risk. The only way it can be effectively regulated is with draconian measures.