Trick is to not get into the unwinnable situation. I think the correct response is to not shield clients from blame when they refuse or are unable to comply with court orders and throw them under the bus. Which is what Julie Le did when she informed the court the violation was intentional, and was fired for.

"Julie Le, was removed from her post in Minnesota after she told Judge Jerry Blackwell the violations were the result of both a personnel shortage and lackluster procedures intended to ensure orders are followed." “And, yes, procedure in place right now sucks. I’m trying to fix it,” she said. “The system sucks. This job sucks.”

Governments around the world could setup, in solidarity with the US, freedom.ca, freedom.eu etc. Hosting provided by Pornhub. Maybe Pornhub could even start registering the TLDs now where available.

Age verification is required for age limited servers and channels. The vast majority are not age limited and will remain available without verification. As has happened in the past, more of the remaining channels will turn off age limiting as it becomes more invasive, in favor of moderation and tweaked community standards (no more porn in #shitpost). I'd expect the remaining bits will leave, with most of the members not wanting it to be linked to their real id.

There are servers that require a phone number to have been provided, I think in an attempt to stop harassment and sock puppets.

Its particularly interesting for the Australian laws (which don't target Discord yet). The law places responsibility on the targeted platform if they are found with underage users. They must take 'reasonable steps' or face fines. It will be interesting if/when court cases appear. Will easily spoofed or tricked facial scans be considered 'reasonable' by the Australian courts? I think once the dust has settled we will start seeing some court cases and discover how reasonable some of these fig-leaves are.

Sites need to deal with Australia, which punted all responsibility to the platforms and provided no real assistance (like say the government half of the eID system that manages all the keys and metadata)

> Sites need to deal with Australia

Do they? The UK’s population is more than double of Australia’s and some websites (e.g. imgur) are outright blocking the UK.

All publicly-listed ad delivery systems like Meta do in fact need to deal with high-income countries.

They can't afford to and will never strike off 100m Brits and Aussies, and that number will only rise with more high-income countries making regulation.

imgur blocking the UK is not due to ID verification, but because they refused to stop making money off childrens data.

The reason is irrelevant. The point is websites don’t need to deal with <insert country>.

Its like it is evolving in front of our eyes! Eventually they might get somewhere that meets all the requirements, natural selection governed by lawsuits.

Australian laws decided to explicitly not blame the parents and place the responsibility on the platform. Turns out not all parents are responsible adults with a diploma in dark pattern navigation, and some kids don't even have parents. So if the goal is to help the kids, rather than have someone to blame when they get abused, you can't just pass the buck.

Grants operate differently over here. You have to write a submission, proposing works and budget and generally justifying. It is assessed by a committee. Politics gets involved. And a few people get larger chunks of money and the people holding the purse strings retain control on what is produced. It is essentially work on commission for the government, except you rarely get 100% of your costs covered.

Whereas in this Irish program, it is less money for more people chosen by lottery. The only editorial control is who is qualified to enter the lottery. It is also subsidizing the artist and not the art work, with artists working in cheap mediums receiving the same as artists dealing with high costs. So you are still going to need a grant or commission if you work in monumental bronze.

Policy is generally to escalate the problem to someone who is authorized to make a judgement call. Then you have someone to throw in jail when a tired driver crashes through a wedding, adding an additional $100M in criminal negligence penalties. You probably don't want your AI to be making judgement calls.

I admit to not reading most of the paper, but afaict the setup here is that the authorized person *has" made the judgement call and is asking the AI to implement that judgement and we're looking at whether the AI pushes back.