| ▲ | onli 18 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Awesome. Now you have a system where every blog entry, every Facebook post needs a lawyer consultation. Around 20 years ago, Germany actually made a law that would have enforced such a system. I still have a chart in my blog that explained it, https://www.onli-blogging.de/1026/JMStV-kurz-erklaert.html. Content for people over 16 would have to be marked accordingly or be put offline before 22:00, plus, if your site has a commercial character - which according to german courts is every single one in existence - you would need to hire a someone responsible for protecting teenagers and children (Jugenschutzbeauftragten). Result: It was seen as a big censor machine and I saw many sites and blogs shut down. You maybe can make that law partly responsible for how far behind german internet enterprises still are. Only a particular kind of bureaucrat wants to make business in an environment that makes laws such as this. Later the law wasn't actually followed. Only state media still has a system that blocks films for adults (=basically every action movie) from being accessed without age verification if not past 22:00. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Now you have a system where every blog entry, every Facebook post needs a lawyer consultation. You have that with any form of any of these things. They're almost certainly going to be set up so that you get in trouble for claiming that adult content isn't but not for having non-adult content behind the adult content tag. Then you would be able to avoid legal questions by labeling your whole site as adult content, with the obvious drawback that then your whole site is labeled as adult content even though most of it isn't. But using ID requirements instead doesn't get you out of that. You'd still need to either identify which content requires someone to provide an ID before they can view it, or ID everyone. That's an argument for not doing any of these things, but not an argument for having ID requirements instead of content tags. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | like_any_other 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> plus, if your site has a commercial character - which according to german courts is every single one in existence - you would need to hire a someone responsible for protecting teenagers and children (Jugenschutzbeauftragten). That is pretty much what the UK Online Safety Act requires: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023 Many small forums had to simply shut down, as was widely reported on HN at the time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | close04 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Awesome. Now you have a system where every blog entry, every Facebook post needs a lawyer consultation. The alternative is that "just to be safe" you'll mark your entire site as needing age (identity, stool sample, whatever) verification. A single piece of sensitive content sets the requirements for the entire site. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||