←back to thread

295 points AndrewDucker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
andybak ◴[] No.45045278[source]
Between this and the UK Online Safety Bill, how are people meant to keep track?

Launch a small website and commit a felony in 7 states and 13 countries.

I wouldn't have known about the Mississippi bill unless I'd read this. How are we have to know?

replies(9): >>45045295 #>>45045350 #>>45045462 #>>45045802 #>>45047760 #>>45047928 #>>45048091 #>>45050064 #>>45054184 #
Hamuko ◴[] No.45045462[source]
Check your local laws and make sure never to travel outside your current state.
replies(1): >>45045573 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.45045573[source]
States should come together with their neighboring states to start passing identical model legislation for this sort of stuff, if we don’t have unity across the country. It could be easy and voluntary for the states to do.

The US doesn’t have 50 different cultures with totally different values, but probably has like… 7.

replies(3): >>45045657 #>>45045919 #>>45047643 #
gapan ◴[] No.45045919[source]
> States should come together with their neighboring states to start passing identical model legislation for this sort of stuff...

Yes! Make a union of states! How should we call that? States Union... Union of States... United States! Yeah, that should work.

replies(4): >>45046317 #>>45046435 #>>45050063 #>>45053761 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.45046435[source]
Getting ~340M people to agree on anything is too hard, and now a good chunk of us seem to think the government can’t do anything productive at all. IMO, it would be nice to have an in between layer to do bigger things.
replies(2): >>45047174 #>>45055008 #
brewdad ◴[] No.45047174[source]
Sure. But the idea was to have neighboring states pass matching laws. Oregon borders Washington. Washington borders Idaho. Idaho borders Montana…etc.

At some point it makes more sense to pass such a law at the federal level since we end up there eventually either way.

replies(1): >>45047302 #
bee_rider ◴[] No.45047302[source]
Ok, sorry for the poor writing. I mean states could form informal groups with likeminded states. So, the northeast could all pass the same law, the pacific coast, Texas and friends, wherever else.

Expecting laws to instead propagate from neighbor to neighbor as I accidentally suggested—this wasn’t what I meant to suggest, but in defense of the idea:

> At some point it makes more sense to pass such a law at the federal level since we end up there eventually either way.

I do think there still could be some value. Laws could propagate across states that are more receptive to them, and then people can see if they work or not. Porting Masshealth to the whole country at once seems to have been a little bumpy. If it has instead been rolled out to the rest of New England, NY, then down to Pennsylvania… might have gone a little smoother.

replies(1): >>45053318 #
thmsths ◴[] No.45053318[source]
So basically fallout style commonwealthes?
replies(1): >>45054183 #
1. bee_rider ◴[] No.45054183[source]
Probably not? I didn’t play it but I don’t think anybody would target a postapocalyptic fiction setting as a goal.

More like: look at the EU, extrapolate how it would look after a little more unification, and then take advantage of the fact that we’re made up of small states already that can group ourselves up as fits. Germany and France seem all-right, so we should organize ourselves into Germany and France size units.