Hacker News Reader

Comment by john_strinlai | Hacker News Reader

im not particularly concerned myself, but any ban like you propose would almost certainly go up to age 12 (at least), making it effectively impossible to enforce.

i see your other comment about guns, so just to preempt that a little bit: the internet is far more ubiquitously available than guns are.

View on HN

I'm not feeling strongly about enforcement. The point would be to not have websites be liable if things go wrong, the way that breweries aren't responsible if some drunk teen drives to his death.

Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be banned.

>The point would be to not have websites be liable if things go wrong

im mostly on board with that.

>Enforcement of banning alcohol for younglings (or drunk driving in general) is equally tricky

alcohol bans are way easier to enforce.

the internet is invisibly broadcast everywhere. most of my downtown & surrounding area has free wifi access. devices that can connect to the internet are also everywhere. phones, tablets, tvs, fridges, etc.

on the other hand, alcohol comes from licensed stores and requires a physical transaction to take place.

Without a device that you need to get from a physical transaction you won't be accessing the internet, either.

There are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol now. They haven't been there since the invention of alcohol, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com