[eterps]

I'm wondering if this proposal is enforced, and you opt out, how would it be known whether you're sending someone a URL? How would a URL even be distinguished from other text when you have opted out?

I suppose you could detect some patterns, and it definitely wouldn't be clickable. But is the text google.com considered a URL for example? I guess it isn't?

(yeah I know, it's a stupid law anyway, but just wondering)

[throwaway22032]

It's like the oldschool scam days on MMO's.

g3tfr33g0ld DOT сом

[Sephr]

If you 'opt out', service providers can prevent you from sending anything under these new rules. You might not even be able to reach out to support to complain without consenting to your messages being scanned.

[nicce]

So what is the difference of opt-in and opt-out here?

In both cases, they identify and scan something.

Not sure, if there is out at all.

[CRConrad]

> In both cases, they identify and scan something

No, as I understood the GP comment, if you opt out there won't be anything for them to identify and scan, because you can't send anything.

> Not sure, if there is out at all.

Sure there is: You can opt out from being on the Internet.

[nicce]

> because you can't send anything.

I would argue that comment implies that something might be alllowed, but not everything. There is potential to restrict any kind of data. To identify that you are sending something restricted, they need to scan.

> Sure there is: You can opt out from being on the Internet.

Not going to argue with that. But yeah, you can't crash the car if you don't drive it. If you never live, you can't die.

[CRConrad]

> I would argue that comment implies that something might be alllowed, but not everything.

I read it as at least "they permanently remove your ability to send" (or possibly even "they shut down your account").

[pera]

It wont be perfect and it will fail in stupid ways, by design.