5 ms·

You can use this argument against any law ever passed. Yes there will be a black market, and yes more people will turn to it than before, but if 99% of instance

by paxys 3y ago

You can use this argument against any law ever passed. Yes there will be a black market, and yes more people will turn to it than before, but if 99% of instances of the thing you were targeting have been removed then it is still a success.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
brookst 3y ago
Do you think it will be as successful as the war on drugs?
- adql 3y ago
  Dunno, is US government funding production and shipment of it like they did for drugs ? If they are not I wager chances are higher
- _trampeltier 3y ago
  Or japanese pixel porn
- classified 3y ago
  There's a difference between banning something for everyone and banning it for minors. I want my drugs legalized, but that doesn't mean I want to give them to children.
nicgrev103 3y ago
Not any law ever passed. Speed limits for example, in fact most traffic laws. Contract law, banking law, property law, a lot of criminal law, for example theft, assault. In fact I think the argument can only be used on laws that ban things for sale or consumption.
- paxys 3y ago
  "If you make XYZ illegal it will only affect people who care about following laws" is a very common argument used for everything.
ch_123 3y ago
That argument depends entirely on whether or not the law makes it harder to access an alternative. In the case of internet porn, people simply need to go to another site.
rsynnott 3y ago
I think the difference here is that the smaller sites aren’t a black market necessarily; they’re presumably not generally _illegal_, simply not liable to extra scrutiny as “Very Large Online Platforms”. There are a bunch of other EU rules (under the DMA, DSA, GDPR etc) which de facto if not de jure only apply to very large players, but the difference is that most of the rules are either non-obvious to the user (the average user has no idea that sites want to sell their data, and if told that the GDPR restricts that will either see that as good or will not care), or obviously positive to the user (no-one is leaving threads because the cruel Digital Markets Act forces it to provide a non-logged-in browsing mode). A rule which is annoying to many users but can be evaded by just switching to an unsupervised smaller player seems unlikely to work.

by paxys 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

brookst 3y ago

Do you think it will be as successful as the war on drugs?

adql 3y ago
Dunno, is US government funding production and shipment of it like they did for drugs ? If they are not I wager chances are higher
_trampeltier 3y ago
Or japanese pixel porn
classified 3y ago
There's a difference between banning something for everyone and banning it for minors. I want my drugs legalized, but that doesn't mean I want to give them to children.

nicgrev103 3y ago

Not any law ever passed. Speed limits for example, in fact most traffic laws. Contract law, banking law, property law, a lot of criminal law, for example theft, assault. In fact I think the argument can only be used on laws that ban things for sale or consumption.

paxys 3y ago
"If you make XYZ illegal it will only affect people who care about following laws" is a very common argument used for everything.

ch_123 3y ago

That argument depends entirely on whether or not the law makes it harder to access an alternative. In the case of internet porn, people simply need to go to another site.

rsynnott 3y ago

I think the difference here is that the smaller sites aren’t a black market necessarily; they’re presumably not generally _illegal_, simply not liable to extra scrutiny as “Very Large Online Platforms”. There are a bunch of other EU rules (under the DMA, DSA, GDPR etc) which de facto if not de jure only apply to very large players, but the difference is that most of the rules are either non-obvious to the user (the average user has no idea that sites want to sell their data, and if told that the GDPR restricts that will either see that as good or will not care), or obviously positive to the user (no-one is leaving threads because the cruel Digital Markets Act forces it to provide a non-logged-in browsing mode). A rule which is annoying to many users but can be evaded by just switching to an unsupervised smaller player seems unlikely to work.