Anonymous ID: e9eeba March 23, 2018, 1:10 p.m. No.770378   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0550

>>770362

If they get the right people and law enforcement and funding, they could make a dent in it. Really, it needs network enhancements to add metadata to match the laws to do it well, IMO. That's a long-term upgrade, but could be pushed as an RFC addition to the protocols.

Anonymous ID: e9eeba March 23, 2018, 1:28 p.m. No.770573   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0640

>>770550

They could have easily had a content type RFC added to the protocols 20 years ago but nobody wanted to do it. It could be added to the internet in 2 years easily and then it could be trivial to have any bastian router (firewall) refuse porn packets because of the content type. Not hard if Congress just said "THIS WILL HAPPEN."

Anonymous ID: e9eeba March 23, 2018, 1:34 p.m. No.770631   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0657

>>770614

I'd like to see all bills be limited to solving one singular problem. If there are separate problems, they each require their own bill. This eliminates the need for a line-item veto regardless of the complexity of the solution to a given problem.