> Every three years, the public could submit petitions proposing new mandates for anti-piracy technology.
Why stop at websites, when OSes and browsers could do the filtering for you? And why stop at piracy, when there are all sorts of other illegal files (and "legal but harmful" content) out there?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I think that these are all terrible ideas, and I fear that once the government starts mandating blackboxes for one purpose, it will become harder to prevent laws mandating blackboxes for other purposes).
What is misinformation? Does just being wrong count, or do you have to prove malicious intent? How do you prove intent? What about things that were correct at one point in time but aren't anymore? What about things discussing or analyzing the misinformation, that by definition requires showing/spreading it?
How about you just let people be free? Some people are stupid. You're never going to stop that. But the paternalistic "just filter it out" nonsense isn't the panacea those in favor of it think it is.
Rather than acting like everyone else is an idiot, perhaps explain your points rationally. You might even convince some fence-sitters or make folks who disagree with you less sure of their positions.
But the tone of your comment is very much "it's obvious, you dumbasses" which only entrenches those whose minds you'd presumably like to change.
Why stop at websites, when OSes and browsers could do the filtering for you? And why stop at piracy, when there are all sorts of other illegal files (and "legal but harmful" content) out there?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I think that these are all terrible ideas, and I fear that once the government starts mandating blackboxes for one purpose, it will become harder to prevent laws mandating blackboxes for other purposes).