They are building the framework piece by piece. First the API is “Honour Based” then it goes to “Prove It”. For once it looks like baby steps instead of full blown head in a toilet of fresh shit like usual. Build your off line libraries, soon the only way to win will be not to play
I mean… there’s nothing stopping anyone from setting their age to 100 years old. It’s not like they are adding any sort of identification check, from what I gather. Just doing the minimum to comply.
Yeah, once everyone gets comfortable with being asked their age, then it’ll go to requiring a ‘realistic’ age instead of accepting someone born 1/1/1900, then it’ll move to requiring proof of your age
That’s a slippery slope fallacy. It’s like arguing that communities should have no moderation at all, not even fair one, because it opens the door for unfair moderation too…
One might as well argue slippery slopes in the opposite direction, the more you reject systems in which you have control, the more incentive they’ll have to promote methods where you’ll have no control. So you can equally say that rejecting this method will make them move to other methods that wouldn’t be as mild or as easy to actively be disobedient against.
A “good faith effort to comply” with a bad faith law is to pipe /dev/yes to the API.
Also showing lawmakers how easy it is means even more laws down the pipeline to really make development disgusting because “it worked before, right?”
They are building the framework piece by piece. First the API is “Honour Based” then it goes to “Prove It”. For once it looks like baby steps instead of full blown head in a toilet of fresh shit like usual. Build your off line libraries, soon the only way to win will be not to play
I mean… there’s nothing stopping anyone from setting their age to 100 years old. It’s not like they are adding any sort of identification check, from what I gather. Just doing the minimum to comply.
Yeah, once everyone gets comfortable with being asked their age, then it’ll go to requiring a ‘realistic’ age instead of accepting someone born 1/1/1900, then it’ll move to requiring proof of your age
That’s a slippery slope fallacy. It’s like arguing that communities should have no moderation at all, not even fair one, because it opens the door for unfair moderation too…
One might as well argue slippery slopes in the opposite direction, the more you reject systems in which you have control, the more incentive they’ll have to promote methods where you’ll have no control. So you can equally say that rejecting this method will make them move to other methods that wouldn’t be as mild or as easy to actively be disobedient against.
For now