I would argue the reason is so people can make arguments like yours.

Step 1: get easily passed, simple looking laws passed to 'protect the children' Step 2: 'oh look at all these people bypassing the law. It's so simple for a child to watch porn with this.' Step 3: increase the requirements bit by bit on the verification

By letting something simple pass, they can claim it's not thst bad, and anyone who argues against it is being hyperbolic.

▲

xp84 2 days ago | parent [-]

Can you back that up?

> Step 2: 'oh look at all these people bypassing the law. It's so simple for a child to watch porn with this.'

This would be a demonstrably stupid argument. A parent who simply opens the box and does 5 minutes of setup before giving their child a new $300-2000 device, and maintains the most basic awareness of any rogue devices (i.e. ask questions if a new phone appears) is all it takes to make sure no "bypassing" takes place in your home.

Anyone claiming "all these kids are bypassing it" would be lying, unless the law isn't even being enforced or sites aren't cooperating. And no law can overcome those problems.

	▲	kikoreis 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Do you have children? Have you witnessed what they can do with restricted $300-2000 devices? My kids hack restaurant tablets at every place we go. I don't even know how they do it most of the time. This is going to be one hell of a slippery slope. And the actual publisher-driven proposal in this thread is so much more useful; I would love to filter out anything with excess violence and generally NSFW content from my view of the Internet -- and I am over 18.
	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]