In SN 1043 there was a discussion about BlueSky response to age verification laws in various States. BlueSky insisting that it must be just for "adult content". Logical problem is that particularly on communication&social gathering sites like BlueSky extremely adult content and interactions can fly by w/o any disclosure. Case in point, crime that led to the deadly end in Mississippi, crime which their legislature attempted to prevent in the future, ... was not a visit to "adult content" but social networking catfishing exploit. Even if this law would fail short of stopping such attempt, identity of the evil who led poor young person to death would have been recorded and punishment would have been swift and easy.
While I disagree with all these laws and prefer variation on the parental controls (parents to be legally mandated to actively define their children device as owned by a minor up to the age of 18, felony if they don't so that we can use Internet without "papers please"), logic of "for adult content only" is completely flawed at this day and age.
While I disagree with all these laws and prefer variation on the parental controls (parents to be legally mandated to actively define their children device as owned by a minor up to the age of 18, felony if they don't so that we can use Internet without "papers please"), logic of "for adult content only" is completely flawed at this day and age.
