> These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Please excuse the tangent here. I respect your ability to have an opinion on the positions you personally feel

> These laws are imperfect, but also necessary. Please excuse the tangent here. I respect your ability to have an opinion on the positions you personally feel are worth backing by violence (i.e. the nature of law). However, in turn, please respect the fact that nothing is literally "necessary," especially with such conflicted notions, beyond the word's use in hyperbole. Your respect of this point will allow for more respect and tolerance of opinions that differ from your own. Even 99.9% of the planet agreeing on one issue does not necessarily make that issue necessary. It depends on the actual threat. This is especially the case when that one issue begins to directly impose violence on the 0.1% who disagree and who want to live nonviolently but differently from your own lifestyle. It's very healthy to focus on solutions that improve awareness in matters where safety is significant. By all means, warn people. By all means, give people more access to the feedback of transparent information: e.g. transmitting knowledge to people about whether or not an entity is regulated by whichever particular system/regulator. But if you advocate the prohibition of a person trying to have a consensual relationship -- such as a person to Uber's service, a person willing to take that "risk" -- then you quickly tread into unethical territory. However small of a law it is in your perspective, it may be a large form of tyranny to the perspective of the people and entities you're directly willing to undermine or criminalize.