I get the impossible bind this puts small companies in & having people resort to IP blocking the entire country is clearly a sign of a broken setup But playing

I get the impossible bind this puts small companies in & having people resort to IP blocking the entire country is clearly a sign of a broken setup But playing devils advocate a bit here if the risk profile to the kid is the same on big and small platforms then there isn't any ethical room a lighter regime. Never mind full exemption, any exemption. The whole line of reasoning that you can't afford it therefore more kids potentially getting hurt on your platform is more acceptable just doesn't play. And similarly if you do provide a lighter touch regime, then the big players will rightly say well if that is adequate to ensure safety then why exactly can't we do that too? Platform size just isn't a relevant metric on some topics - child safety being one of them. Ethically whether a child is exposed to harm on a small or big website is the same thing. Not that I think this act will do much of anything for child safety. Which is why I think this needs to go back to drawing board entirely. Cause if we're not effectively protecting children yet killing businesses (and freedoms) then wtf are we doing