The intent behind HB 20, which has a size exemption and has not AFAIK driven anyone out of the market. The ID law, sure, I doubt the proponents of it care whic

The intent behind HB 20, which has a size exemption and has not AFAIK driven anyone out of the market. The ID law, sure, I doubt the proponents of it care which alternative comes to pass (ID checks or market exit) since I expect they're opposed to the service to begin with. But that law has no size carveout, I didn't use it as an example, and I don't think it's a good law. So we're likely in agreement regarding it. > Would the former be any different? I expect so, yes. You've constructed a dichotomy where heavy handed moderation and failure to moderate effectively are the only possible outcomes. That seems like ideologically motivated helplessness to me. I'm also not entirely clear what we're talking about anymore. The proposed law has to do with ID checks, the sentiment expressed was "if you don't moderate for yourselves the government will impose on you", and somehow we've arrived at you confidently claiming that decent moderation is unattainable. Yet you haven't specified the price range nor the criteria being adhered to. The point you raise about federated networks is an interesting one, however it remains to be seen if such networks exhibit the same dynamics that centralized ones do. In the absence of a profit driven incentive for an algorithm that farms engagement we don't yet know if the same social ills will be present.