• ÞlubbaÐubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    Eh, whackamole enforcement usually cuts mustard with this kind of stuff.

    Like yeah someone’s gonna do it anyways just because, but then all it takes is enough people raising an alarm to bring it down, and as a side effect, remove more shitass developers from the market.

    You end up with an equilibrium where not every example is getting the hammers of justice, but enough examples are that the average consumer still feels the benefit of a noticeably less toxic internet.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The effectiveness of bans has always hinged on two factors:

      • The likelihood of being caught
      • The severity of punishment if caught

      For example, everyone knows that the odds of being caught speeding are pretty low, but if the punishment for speeding is ten years imprisonment, then very few people will risk speeding.

      Similarly, even if the odds of getting caught violating this law is only 1%, if the punishment is banning the platform and shutting down the company along with a fine equal to a year’s worth of revenue, then companies will probably not want to risk it.

      • onion@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve heard the severity actually doesn’t work as deterrent, people tend to assume they don’t get caught