Decentralized social network Mastodon says it cannot comply with age verification laws, like in Mississippi and elsewhere, and says it's up to individual server owners to decide.
I don’t like the idea of actions that don’t hurt others being a crime.
Me neither, but I like even less the idea that an action that is, demonstrably, dangerous to other should not be stopped until it provoke damages.
It’s about consistency.
You are right. And it is about consistency the starting point from which we are discussing: minors should not be able to access porn. Now, in the real life there is such law and it in on the seller to check, exactly because you cannot count on the fact that a parent is 24/7 with his child, so I don’t see why we should not try to enforce the same law on the Net, it is only on a different media.
Now, I agree that checking on the net is way harder than in real life, but minors are minors and porn is porn. If it is dangerous to see a naked woman on Playboy is also dangerous to see her on Playboy.com.
If we make it illegal to do things that MIGHT wind up hurting someone there’s no limit to what we can make illegal.
I see your point, but I simply think that if something is proven to hurt someone, like DUI, then maybe it is right to make it illegal.
Excessive alcoholism is known to cause harm. Should we make being an alcoholic illegal? Wouldn’t that make it harder for alcoholicsnto try to get help, for fear of being arrested instead of getting help, much like what happens to drug addicts?
People get hurt constantly while fishing, too. Should we make fishing illegal?
The problem is where do we draw the line. You want to draw it at some possibility of harm to others. I want to draw it at actual harm to others.
Which of these is more or less likely to wind up being stretched over time?
You aren’t thinking about bureaucrats and politicians 20, 30, 50, or 100 years down the road. “We’ll just fix the laws when it becomes a problem!”
Sure. Because we’re really REALLY good at removing or rewriting broken laws… Oh, wait. No we aren’t.
I don’t like the idea of actions that don’t hurt others being a crime.
It’s about consistency. If we make it illegal to do things that MIGHT wind up hurting someone there’s no limit to what we can make illegal.
Me neither, but I like even less the idea that an action that is, demonstrably, dangerous to other should not be stopped until it provoke damages.
You are right. And it is about consistency the starting point from which we are discussing: minors should not be able to access porn. Now, in the real life there is such law and it in on the seller to check, exactly because you cannot count on the fact that a parent is 24/7 with his child, so I don’t see why we should not try to enforce the same law on the Net, it is only on a different media.
Now, I agree that checking on the net is way harder than in real life, but minors are minors and porn is porn. If it is dangerous to see a naked woman on Playboy is also dangerous to see her on Playboy.com.
I see your point, but I simply think that if something is proven to hurt someone, like DUI, then maybe it is right to make it illegal.
Proven? To whom?
Excessive alcoholism is known to cause harm. Should we make being an alcoholic illegal? Wouldn’t that make it harder for alcoholicsnto try to get help, for fear of being arrested instead of getting help, much like what happens to drug addicts?
People get hurt constantly while fishing, too. Should we make fishing illegal?
The problem is where do we draw the line. You want to draw it at some possibility of harm to others. I want to draw it at actual harm to others.
Which of these is more or less likely to wind up being stretched over time?
You aren’t thinking about bureaucrats and politicians 20, 30, 50, or 100 years down the road. “We’ll just fix the laws when it becomes a problem!”
Sure. Because we’re really REALLY good at removing or rewriting broken laws… Oh, wait. No we aren’t.