>>1043
>Though unironic moralist on the left and right shouldn't be discounted as the ones who where the initial impetus for the thing.
This is why one shouldn´t jump into conclusions so fast. Politicians love those reactions in order to add more excuses and artificial problems. Nothing new but that comes actually from you have said, moralists.

>My personal outlook on at least the near-term is that it will not simply destroy the internet in one punch like its being shrilled but push a lot of stuff into a grayer area.
Everything could become questionable and people would have a lot of fear for not getting into an open case acussing someone for hate or sensible speech when most of the times, that wouldn´t be intention.
>There will be haphazard enforcement with a few random people getting clobbered over it. >it could make larger websites downright victorian in sexual attitudes. Depending on how many are made examples of or if even what is put on the books actually ends up getting enforced the way its written will ultimately determine how risky it is for smaller websites and internet communities.
It´s another restricition for those companies but with the laws more present where the law is not something to prevent but as a weapon to punish. Really scary and it breaks the principles but they are politicans, they do not read a huge historical text, they just do whatever is convenient and that´s it.