4 ms·

Surprised to see this downvoted; I hadn’t even thought of it but it actually seems like an eminently reasonable take. The only logical conclusion, even. How cou

• layer8 1y ago
  It was probably downvoted because it is orthogonal to the issue. The website is (or should be) responsible for malware regardless of whether you are allowed to block it or not.
  • close04 1y ago
    Yes and no. Today the site should be held responsible. But if a law like this is passed then the site must be held responsible. This is what makes all the difference. P.S. Today a site owner is not responsible if an ad is malware, they pass it on to the ad network, who passes it on, and so on.
    • layer8 1y ago
      I disagree. In absence of the law, the responsibility is just the same. It‘s unreasonable to place the responsibility on the user.
• mindslight 1y ago
  It's ultimately still supporting this hostile paradigm wherein corpos legally dictate the processing your user agent is allowed to do on your personal computer, just also grasping at straws trying to bargain for some logically-consistent justice within that paradigm. In reality, this type of support only helps the corpos get the overall legal regime they desire, and then if any such lesser obligations actually do get imposed as well, they will just find ways to weasel out of them later.