[duxup]

>Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a brief concurrence asserting that the Mississippi law is “likely unconstitutional” but said that the internet companies who sued had not “sufficiently demonstrated” that they would be harmed by a temporary order in favor of the state.

That seems important.

More so on the topic:

> an effort the state said is intended to protect children from online predators

I wonder with all this effort, are kids safer with these laws? I believe most abuse situations like this occur where the abuser is someone the child already knows right, not some internet ramdo?

I also think about the internet rando cases I see on my local news and honestly it appears in those cases the parents sit there and say "Watch your kids online, I didn't ... at all.". I'm not sure an unattended child is being saved by these laws.

Seems like a lot of these efforts are futile efforts to shield children FROM the internet, rather than equip them to make good choices.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Justice Kavanaugh asserted the Mississippi law is "likely unconstitutional" but said that the internet companies who sued had not "sufficiently demonstrated" they would be harmed by a temp order in favor of the state.

Did platforms not bring up the

    ongoing expense of a verification system
    liability from system verification failures
    ongoing expense of securing verification data
    liability when verification data is exfiltrated

?