From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 20/08/2025 16:02, Mark Goodge wrote: 
  
 > As far as that's concerned, I'm sure there are campaigners who won't be 
 > satisfied with anything less than 100% effectiveness. And they will, of 
 > course, be disappointed. But that's no different to road safety campaigners 
 > who think we should prevent 100% of all RTA deaths. That's impossible, too. 
 > But that doesn't mean we can't usefully reduce the number of deaths. Nobody 
 > is arguing that because we can't prevent 100% of RTA deaths, there's no 
 > point trying to even reduce them. The real debate is about how best to 
 > reduce them, and what are the best ways of going about that. 
 > 
 > Similarly with preventing kids seeing porn. We can never have a system that 
 > makes it completely impossible. There will always be some way round it. But 
 > that doesn't mean it isn't possible to reduce the number of kids seeing 
 > porn. 
  
 You mean like giving them the vote and sending them off to play down the 
 polling station instead? 
  
 > Whether age verification is the best way of addressing that is a valid 
 > debate. But nobody is crazy enough to suggest that because something isn't 
 > 100% effective, there's no point even bothering to try. 
  
 The problem is that it it's those who can and will get round it who are 
 more likely to be those you want to stop. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)