281–290 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could just be monkey see monkey do.
Then it is monkey see, monkey do the same/similar policies on smoking control, LEZ, digital ID, children's education, red meat and fish consumption, alcohol consumption, women's rights and a whole host of other things. Some of these are good causes, some not so much. Some of them rely on an excluded middle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understood the original intent. I just don't think it's a viable solution. The US govt has not been shy about borrowing and printing more money to do whatever they want.
That borrowing funds only the federal government, not the state government. The states don't get to borrow in the same way. Also, that borrowing will increasingly come with a high interest rate and high inflation.
There's tension between this law and the 14th, 5th and 1st amendments. Due process doctrine from the 5th and 14th establish unconstitutional vagueness. A law cannot be so vague as to be impossible to comply with. This law requires websites to enforce a ban based on information they don't have access to. Without explain how they might possibly achieve that aim, it can be considered unconstitutionally vague. The 1st am…
I'm not convinced. I use a VPN basically always, and frequently get blocked by VPN detectors. It's not perfect - sometimes switching VPN servers/providers gets me past it, but websites can employ VPN-detection technology. Then they just block you, which is what this is all about. Force companies to start blocking VPN traffic. It'll be at the individual site level for a while, then at the ISP level in a few years.
What is the motivation for such a measure? In other words, which problem is it trying to solve? And how it is supposed to do so? I think that we should not carelessly invent laws that just "sound good" to some lawmakers but have no real fact checking done to support them and are not backed by science. Because, in my opinion, then there is a high risk that these "good intentions" will backfire spectacularly. While not…
I believe the perceived problem is that people in Utah are watching porn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They realized all the data on user behaviour is useless after trying to leverage on it with LLMs and now they go after seemingly new riches
Useless data?? There is a massive revenue stream that says this is completely off base. The data they have is already extremely valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you need is one and a good business model. Modern adblocking emerged exactly in the same way. The majority of people who use adblock have no idea what current techniques and methods are used.
Ad blocking isn’t illegal (yet).
Righteous minds will figure out workarounds in the face of being told "they cannot/should not do ".
All you need is one contrarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All you need is one and a good business model. Modern adblocking emerged exactly in the same way. The majority of people who use adblock have no idea what current techniques and methods are used.
>a good business model What exactly does that mean when the entire business is inherently illegal?
Any other obviously bad-faith questions?