> Doesn't matter if it doesn't cover some gray areas or 100% of it.

That's exactly the thing that matters when you're dealing with something where every loophole is going to have a caravan of trucks driving through it.

> We don't have an all-encompassing definition of porn either, but we have legal definitions, and we have legal frameworks regarding it.

You're picking the thing which is a hopeless disaster as your exemplar?

▲

coldtea 7 hours ago | parent [-]

>That's exactly the thing that matters when you're dealing with something where every loophole is going to have a caravan of trucks driving through it.

Everything with profit "is going to have a caravan of trucks driving through it". He have laws anyway for those things, and for the most part, they're effective. I'd take a relative improvement even if it's not 100% over free reign.

>You're picking the thing which is a hopeless disaster as your exemplar?

I don't consider it a "hopeless disaster" (except in it's effects on society). As a business it's regulated, and for the most part, stays and follows within those regulations. The existence of dark illegal versions of it, or exploitation in the industry, doesn't negate this.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Everything with profit "is going to have a caravan of trucks driving through it". He have laws anyway for those things, and for the most part, they're effective. For the most part they're trash. There is a narrow range of effectiveness where the cost of compliance is low and thereby can be exceeded by the expected cost of reasonable penalties imposed at something significantly less than 100% effective enforcement, e.g. essentially all gas stations stopped selling leaded gasoline because unleaded gasoline isn't that much more expensive. The cost of complying with a ban on advertising is high, so the amount of effort that will be put into bypassing it will be high, which is the situation where that doesn't work. > As a business it's regulated, and for the most part, stays and follows within those regulations. It essentially bifurcated content creation and distribution into "this is 100% porn" and "this company will not produce or carry anything that would cause it to have to comply with those rules" which inhibits quality for anything that has to go in the "porn" box and pressures anything in the "not porn" box to be sufficiently nerfed that they don't have to hire more lawyers. The combination of "most human communication now happens via social media" and "expressing your own sexuality is effectively banned on most major social media platforms" is probably a significant contributor to the fact that people are having less sex now and the fertility rate is continuing to decline. "All the boobs you could ever possibly look at but only on the sites where there is no one you will ever marry" is not a super great way to split up the internet. The ambiguity in the definition frequently causes people to be harassed or subject to legal risk when doing sex education, anatomy, etc. when they're trying to operate openly with a physical presence in a relevant jurisdiction. Conversely, it's the internet and it's global so every terrible thing you'd want to protect anyone from is all still out there and most of the rules are imposing useless costs for no benefits, or worse, causing things to end up in places where there are no rules, not even the ones that have nothing to do with sex. It's now being used as an guise to extract ID from everyone for surveillance purposes. It's a solid example of bad regulations setting fire to the omnishambles.