803
Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws (techcrunch.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
190 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Proven? To whom?

    Never heard about people killed in crash caused by drunken driver ? Or pedestrians hit by cars driven by drunked drivers ?

    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?

    No, we should just have laws try to avoid consequences for others Are you an alcoholic ? Ok, we will help you to be ok but at the same time we try to avoid you drive while drunk. It not seems too unreasonable

    People get hurt constantly while fishing, too. Should we make fishing illegal?

    Point is: how probable is that someone fishing hurts someone else ? How much damage you can do ?
    Again, the point is not to make something illegal because you can hurt yourself, it is about trying to have law that try to prevent you hurt someone else while doing something.
    If fishing can hurt others, maybe we should have a law that, while not forbidding to fish, protect the others from what you are doing. I would imagine that you would not like to swim in the sea while someone is fishing with bombs (illegal) 2 meters away from you, don't you ?

    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.

    Fine as long as you accept the consequences. I just don't agree with you.

    Which of these is more or less likely to wind up being stretched over time?

    Both, because you just need to redefine what "harm" means. And some people is good to do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Probability is not certainty.

    I do not want people in jail for doing something that is probably a crime.

    Every so-called crime that has no jail time shouldn't be a crime. Fees are just another way of enforcing class warfare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Probability is not certainty.

    True, but there is an history of cases about it where the probabilty became certainty.

    I do not want people in jail for doing something that is probably a crime.

    Me eighter but at the same time I would like to prevent some behaviors that could be dangerous to others.
    I know it could be a slippery slope but honestly it would not console me to know that the drunken driver where punished *after *he hit me, I would prefer if he would be stopped *before *being able to hit me.

    Every so-called crime that has no jail time shouldn’t be a crime. Fees are just another way of enforcing class warfare.

    But fines works only if they are proportional to your wealth, else they are a punishment only for the poor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn't "bad" enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn't be a crime at all.

    Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.

    Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That's no accident, that's an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.

    Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that's not a problem. There's no criminal punishment happening, and if it's in the contract you signed, that's expected.

    But, you should only criminally punish someone after they've hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.

    Define "bad enough", because this is a very slippery slope. What about thefts ?

    Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.

    Following this reasoning, there are no crimes until you get caught and/or there is a victim. To me this is unacceptable in a decent society.

    Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.

    And why we should not to try to avoid to have a person in jail and one killed in the first place ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Theft has a victim, what are you talking about???

    Without an actual victim there is no crime.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •