3 ms·

> How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs,

> How would this work? Who's going to set up the taxonomy / classification tree for every domain/site on the internet just so a guardian can say "yes to drugs, no to porn, no to news, no to weapons..."? This isn't really an answer, but the same problem exists with current age verification laws. I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to accurately report the appropriateness of their content. If not, they would be legally liable. Of course this introduces the problem that foreign entities not subject to the law are effectively exempt from the requirement.

stvltvs 2y ago
Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content (allow this setting to be disabled and locked down in parental controls), then hold websites liable for willfully or negligently mislabeling. Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it.
- michaelmior 2y ago
  > Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content This doesn't solve the case for entities not subject to this law. They can just label their content as totally safe and not have to worry about penalties.
- evil-olive 2y ago
  > Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content "have" is a bit ambiguous here. I assume you actually mean "have the government require"? in other words, if I develop a browser, I could be fined or thrown in jail for not implementing your "default to blocking anything unlabeled" strategy? since implementing a browser is a vast undertaking, what about if I maintained a fork of Chromium or Firefox that simply disabled that check? we had this exact same debate 20ish years ago [0] except it was about the specter of TV piracy and file-sharing. the proposed solution was the same, though - require software that could be used for piracy to incorporate a specific check, and make it illegal to distribute software without that check. it was a terrible idea then, and remains a terrible idea now. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag
- baby_souffle 2y ago
  > Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it. We already have CDA/230
baby_souffle 2y ago
> I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to accurately report the appropriateness of their content. What would reddit.com do? > If not, they would be legally liable. We already have CDA/230. > Of course this introduces the problem that foreign entities not subject to the law are effectively exempt from the requirement. And so this whole endeavor was just defeated with free trial to any of the _many_ VPN services out there. Even a genuinely incurious person will eventually trip over a free/cheap VPN offer just browsing youtube.
- michaelmior 2y ago
  I would think that that CDA/230 would probably have to amended if such a new law were to make any sense.

stvltvs 2y ago

Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content (allow this setting to be disabled and locked down in parental controls), then hold websites liable for willfully or negligently mislabeling. Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it.

michaelmior 2y ago
> Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content This doesn't solve the case for entities not subject to this law. They can just label their content as totally safe and not have to worry about penalties.
evil-olive 2y ago
> Have browsers default block anything that doesn't label their content "have" is a bit ambiguous here. I assume you actually mean "have the government require"? in other words, if I develop a browser, I could be fined or thrown in jail for not implementing your "default to blocking anything unlabeled" strategy? since implementing a browser is a vast undertaking, what about if I maintained a fork of Chromium or Firefox that simply disabled that check? we had this exact same debate 20ish years ago [0] except it was about the specter of TV piracy and file-sharing. the proposed solution was the same, though - require software that could be used for piracy to incorporate a specific check, and make it illegal to distribute software without that check. it was a terrible idea then, and remains a terrible idea now. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag
baby_souffle 2y ago
> Exceptions for good faith efforts to label correctly. Maybe a special label for user generated content that holds companies a bit less liable for it. We already have CDA/230

baby_souffle 2y ago

> I think the main difference with traditional parental control software is that the burden would be on the site maintainer to accurately report the appropriateness of their content. What would reddit.com do? > If not, they would be legally liable. We already have CDA/230. > Of course this introduces the problem that foreign entities not subject to the law are effectively exempt from the requirement. And so this whole endeavor was just defeated with free trial to any of the _many_ VPN services out there. Even a genuinely incurious person will eventually trip over a free/cheap VPN offer just browsing youtube.

michaelmior 2y ago
I would think that that CDA/230 would probably have to amended if such a new law were to make any sense.