On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 03:09, Alex North-Keys <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find myself forced to reply. I agree with Martin in all respects except > one: > > Aaron’s proposal is presented as a practical response to legal pressure. > Alex’s reply is presented as a containment strategy that would make the > mechanism easier to remove, patch, monitor, and adapt if the law worsens. I > understand the reasoning in both cases. > > While I presented a containment strategy, it was only given to try to > shape any perspectives that had already given in to the abomination at > the heart of these laws. In other words, I couched it an approach for the > end times when reasoning has failed. > > I HAVE NOT GIVEN IN. These laws should be fought at every opportunity. > NO ONE should implement them. Further, some of these bills are written > with an exemption around the "The delivery or use of a physical product" > (CA law AB-1043 1798.504(f)(3), same in the CO bill SB 26-051 > 6-30-105(4)(c) ), which would seem to make several of the bills immediately > void unless there's some legal context I'm missing (which is quite > possible, I am a developer, not a lawyer). > > But if anyone DOES implement them, make them absolutely trivial to > completely purge without side effects. Because they absolutely shouldn't > exist, and no politician that votes for them should ever be allowed to hold > office again. > > (aside: This anathema of a bill in Colorado has gained two additional > sponsors, now totaling 4). > I appreciate the clarification. My reading of your earlier reply was that it had moved too far into containment logic, so I wanted to push back hard against that frame. I understand your position better now, and I am genuinely relieved to see it stated so clearly that you have not given in. On that, we are aligned. This should be fought at every opportunity, and it should not be implemented at all. Your point about the “physical product” exemption is also important and worth closer scrutiny, precisely because these bills are so vague and internally unstable. And yes, if reason fails and someone tries to build this anyway, making it trivial to identify and purge without side effects would be a fallback for a failure case, not a design goal that normalizes the mechanism. That is the distinction I wanted to defend. >
