I'm not sure how principled I would be if/when it comes to that. I hope I will be.
Like, I don’t maintain the delusion that I can’t be precisely identified by the apps I use. I just am vehemently opposed to it being tied to my government issued identity, which could be arbitrarily revoked and controlled by people who dont have pure profit as their motive. A lot of people probably find that overly paranoid.
Uncle Bob probably would probably need to do a decent amount of work to figure out how to purchase a OneDrive subscription from having no account, particularly if they think "I've already got an account - that's how I log in!". If the PC forces Bob to walk through creating a cloud Microsoft account before he even sees the desktop then the only step remaining is to click to OneDrive (or whatever) sales notification and enter a credit card so his "important personal files stay backed up" (or however they pitch the service in the notifications).
Bless your cotton socks, you had it in the first part MS wants to sell stuff, but then you failed to realise that by tying people to a consistent account ID builds a profiling on them that lets MS serve targeted advertisements, through Edge.
I would imagine the backlash from the people would fix this pretty quickly.
This seems like one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations. I'd fully support big tech saying, "Alright Arizona. Build your own technical infrastructure."
And letting the fools in government who don't understand how the world works figure it out the hard way.
What am I missing? (beyond perhaps being overly optimistic!)
Big tech are going to be the ones selling the verified ID solutions and the laws are going to effectively make it mandatory. There’s a potential future where we’ll all be paying for a subscription to a verified ID system that we don’t want.
Big tech is probably lobbying for it behind our backs.
Corporations don’t act on the moral principles regardless of what their PR/marketing department says. It is ultimately decided on how laws affect their bottomline.
They might try to make an example out of a smaller state, but since they aren't selling food or fuel or heart pills it isn't like the state is going to collapse without access to Meta properties.
Also because the companies are beholden to shareholders and their financial best interest. cutting off millions of clients to make a political statement is not in the companies best financial interest and would likely result in a shareholder lawsuit.
A total pull out is what big tech threatens when government is impacting on their profit margins, not working in their favour.
Really miss the old internet.
It is not a coincidence. It means there is some organization out there pushing these. In general, "organization" here applies very broadly; there are some cases where it pretty much is just more-or-less normal people who organize to get something done. I wouldn't expect this particular thing is that for a second, of course. I'm just saying in general the term applies broadly. Someone is organized and trying to push this.
That said I still expect mandatory age verification/ID for the internet to fail legal challenges in the US as there is broad precedent for both anonymous speech rights and children’s speech rights under the first amendment.
The writing has been on the wall for years with a desire among states to identify individuals using the internet. Whether or not we will continue to win the fight against it is up in the air.
Both Ds and Rs have been attacking Section 230; Mark Kelly wants to strip those protections when sites “amplify content that caused harm.” KOSA is a looming bipartisan threat.
Left radicals are as virulently against free speech as those on the right, often calling for allies to “shut down” or even physically harm opponents.
Schools are a particularly difficult battleground for free speech, with actions against scholars from both left and right: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire
If you are left wing, you probably don’t think some of these are censorship, others do, that’s why I said it was a good thing that left and right disagree with each other here. In many ways they cancel each other out, although they do a lot of damage to free speech along the way.
It’s also true that currently in the US the primary threat comes from the right, as a consequence of the right being in power. Internationally it is reversed.
somehow, censorship is only bad when the wrong side does it. when the correct side does it, it's justified and necessary for your democracies to survive.
Would you assert that politicians are by definition untouchable, no matter what they do? Literally. I know your man bragged about this, but was he joking or not?
next example: which 'wing' cheered at COVID misinformation, such as the lab leak theory, being voluntarily suppressed by every platform?
Not disagreeing with the need of a reminder that there was censorship from the left though.
Rep. Michael Way [R]
Rep. Leo Biasiucci [R]
Rep. Selina Bliss [R]
Rep. Michael Carbone [R]
Rep. Neal Carter [R]
Rep. Lupe Diaz [R]
Rep. Lisa Fink [R]
Rep. Matt Gress [R]
Rep. Chris Lopez [R]
Rep. David Marshall [R]
Rep. Quang Nguyen [R]
Rep. James Taylor [R]"Michael is NOT a politician. He has spent his career in business, not government. We need bold, conservative outsiders to shake up business-as-usual."
https://michaelwayforaz.com/about/
The bill sure sounds contradictory to his campaign statement.
[] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/09/01/jaleel-stallings-sh...
--------- re: below due to throttling -------
Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that.
--------------------
>This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
AK implies an AK family firearm. IIRC it was a draco or draco like "pistol." Anyone with familiarity with firearms will consider that "pistol" to be in the AK family; it does have as shortened barrel and no stock but otherwise looks like and has nearly same components as the most common form of AK (In US, AK doesn't imply it is select fire assault rifle, if you go to a gun show and someone is selling an AK it is assumed it is semi-auto unless they advertise it as an NFA AK).
"Lit up" means he opened fire. I linked the case so you could read the facts, I agree it was in self defense, not sure why you assumed otherwise. I would have linked to some other news source if I wanted bias against him.
I said "during" the BLM riots, not that he was a rioter.
I can assure you I probably have a nearly similar opinion on this as you do, it appears you just jumped to conclusions and drawn ones that didn't exist so you could go on your rage against me.
My point here is the people he shot at acted a lot like ICE did in Minneapolis -- rolling up in unmarked cars, masked, shooting people (like goode). It's not clear to me citizens of Minnesota would actually be found guilty if they were to find themselves in a case of self defense.
That is what I'm trying to get people to understand.
It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van".
Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told investigators, as well as the tales police and prosecutors offered up to the media.
Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! Fuck ’em up, gas ’em, fuck ’em up.”
At 17th Avenue and Lake Street, around 10 p.m., the SWAT team saw a group of people outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station. Bittell told the driver to head toward the station and said, “Let ’em have it boys!”
They later learned they were shooting at the gas station owner, neighbors and relatives guarding the station from more looting, as well as bystanders, including a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was yelling, “Press!”
About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot.
They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. [...] Stallings, an Army veteran, returned fire with his mini Draco pistol, for which he had a permit.
---
> Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that.
This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
--------- re: below due to throttling ---------------
>Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew.
Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps.
--------------------------------------
>Is it legal to sell a gun to a child in Arizona? Or do you responsible for age verification? You continue to argue in bad faith.
It is legal to sell a gun to an adult in AZ without carding them and without doing "age verification" as described in the article. In comparison, this bill appears to make it illegal to sell an app to an adult without doing "age verification" as they've described. My comparison here is in good faith.
------------------------------------
>How do they pass the federal background check?
Easy, meet in parking lot, pay cash, buy gun, no background check needed and fully legal.
If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.
How do they pass the federal background check?
Instead (or rather in addition to) activism we should go at it from the other end and request the introduction of a verifiably independent authority and zero knowledge protocol that will deliver a cryptographically secure boolean bit (isOver18) with no way to correlate from either end the ID or which website the bit is used for.
The alternative is IDs get collected by all these horrendous privacy fiends and sold / leaked / monetized across the board, which sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
It's not hard for instance to imagine that once every computing device available to the general public is locked down and cannot be jailbroken without also losing the ability to log into any online service, a law would be introduced requiring client-side scanning of all files to check for CSAM, evidence of political dissent or even just plain old movie piracy. The technology to implement this exists (see what Apple tried to do a few years ago) and the exact same legislation is currently being pushed in the 3D printing space, so these fears are not unfounded.
I agree that if remote device attestation comes bundled in, it's worse overall.
But are we just SOL then? How long before Cloudflare integrates, and then ISPs? What is left of the internet? Are we all going to run pirate LoRa nodes and other such things to get some free (as in freedom) internet?
I will, if it comes down to it. I wouldn’t love to return to the 1980s with pirate BBSes and floppynet, but I already lived through it and survived. There would be a certain romance to it, like old hacker movies, maybe it would even make cyberpunk cool again.
(To be clear, it would still suck and we should fight this. But even if we lose a battle, the war is eternal.)
1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories.
2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist
3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories
4. Require websites to respect that header.
No need for age verification, no need for the government to decide what is/isn't allowed and for free you allow gamblers to prevent gambling content being shown to them etc.
---
This AZ law is frustrating because by targeting the app store it's actually taking a step towards my vision... but in a way that multiplies the harm of age verification instead of diminishing it.
They want to ID everyone, and have all user generated content attributed to a known, identified individual.
Given the pros/cons in context, I think I'm in favor of it for social media, at least. I'd actually argue you would want to go further and you should have your full address, employer, and more available online. LinkedIn is a cesspool of awful salespeople, but you know what it's not? A massive Russian/Chinese/Maga disinformation site. Maybe you should think twice before saying something online you wouldn't say while standing in front of your house or at work.
Anonymity on social media has brought a lot of problems and I'm not sure what the benefits are. Some point to a small percentage of folks who would be "outed" but, given that the alternative seems to be an emerging dystopia of bots, malicious actors, propaganda, and more, maybe actual transparency is better even taking into account potential harmful effects.
I'm open-minded on this and see pros/cons either way. Though I think if you find yourself worried about this stuff you can just delete your accounts and move on with your life. Trust me you aren't missing out on anything.
Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers, effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations. You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations. You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer? You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent.
So no thanks.
Neither does yours? This is a nonsense claim.
> Anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) speech has been a feature of American discourse since before the Revolution.
You're just cherry-picking which ideas you like from the founders or early America. Slavery was also a feature of the United States. Whether we had something in the past or not isn't necessarily a good enough argument to keep doing it.
> Without anonymity, you lose whistleblowers,
We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media.
> effective criticism of the powerful from the weak, and “public interest” leaks like the Snowden revelations.
Snowden, who is living in Russia.
> You lose outlets where the abused can ask for help and advice in escaping bad situations.
The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even.
> You lose any/all criticism of employers current and past; who wants to hire a complainer?
I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this.
> You silence people who are afraid to give their opinion because of their employer or parent.
I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
Yes, and it required a Constitutional amendment to remove it. You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass!
> We can figure out other ways to have whistleblowers without social media.
I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out.
> Snowden, who is living in Russia.
Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point?
> The only way to do this is on social media, anonymously? If so, we have a much bigger problem. An emergency, even.
Good, you’re getting it.
> I complain about past employers all the time. I don't think you lose this.
The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect.
> I don't think so. And both left and right political blocks have gotten plenty of people fired, even those who post anonymously.
Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
Yea but I can think of lots of other examples. You are missing the point.
> You’re welcome to try and push through an amendment to limit free speech rights, but it won’t pass!
I'm in favor of free speech so I wouldn't want to limit it.
> I doubt it! The media is mostly dead or coopted, and the powerful won’t willingly set up a system where you can rat them out.
Sounds like defeatism.
> Yes, to avoid retaliation. Your point?
He's not just there in Russia because of that. My point is he is either an actual traitor, or someone who was duped into doing what he did.
> Good, you’re getting it.
Haha I think you missed the point, but I can explain it for you. If you are relying on social media for these things, you have already screwed up. Regulating them one way or another is immaterial, because the dependency is a far greater problem.
> The popularity of anonymous outlets for this shows that most people don’t share your opinion. It would have a chilling effect.
I don't think it'll have a chilling effect. People publicly complain about their employers all the time using their real information. The popularity of something isn't an acceptable argument to me.
> Thanks for making my point for me. It’s even easier to target people when they are not anonymous. A number of left and right wing commentators are having to pay for private security because of threats. The ones who successfully remain anonymous don’t have to do this.
Maybe you shouldn't say things that result in you needing private security? It's no different than walking down the street yelling vulgar or offensive things. You might get punched. I see much more harm done by anonymous broadcasting here than I see benefits. Plus you are never truly anonymous on these platforms. Sure it's slightly more difficult for someone to identify you, but if you make enough people mad you will be identified and no amount of "anonymity" will save you. If the government itself wanted to identify you it can do so at the snap of a finger.
Maybe you shouldn’t have spoken up. Maybe you shouldn’t have walked down that street. Maybe you shouldn’t have worn that dress.
Done with this convo, I think this says enough.
Anonymity is a shield against public lynching for communities that are targeted by hate groups such as LGBTQ+ (one example, there are plenty).
It would happen a lot more often without anonymity.
If you have to behave everywhere like you are in public, that is the very definition of having no privacy whatsoever.
then I'd never say the things i'm saying about Russia/Putin as i still have a family there or in case US kicks me out back there.
Yes it is.
> You're supporting a systematic chilling effect on free speech.
No I'm not.
~~~~~~
There's no point in free speech if the only free speech is from bots and propagandists. Social media platforms aren't free speech platforms either, you're subject to their terms and conditions.
Sure, but this verification rubbish comes from the government.
> leads exactly to thriving of bots and propagandists while suppressing dissenting voices of regular people.
This is the current state, today, with anonymity.
> Just look at any country where it is already fully or partially implemented.
Which ones?
whatever the current state, removing anonymity will remove dissenting voices of regular people.
> Which ones?
Russia for example. The sites where verification is implemented has become pro-government bot cesspools.
Here you mentioned LinkedIn - it is where pro-Russian propaganda runs free (especially if compare to for example HN where people freely respond to it), and it is exactly where my even pretty mild response to it got me almost banned, and so I don’t engage it there anymore.
I wonder how do you square your de-anonymity of speech position with anonymity of voting, or do also think that voting should not be anonymous?
You're absolving the social media companies of why they continue choosing to amplify bots and extremist content in one big "community", rather than working towards creating smaller communities that can have social trust and social regulation.
That is the core perverse incentive here that actually needs to be addressed, and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
> and by sidestepping that you're then going off into the weeds with some mistaken idea that we can approach the problem by purifying who can use such websites.
On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.
It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.
I am also not "going off into the weeds" because I'm just responding to the OP.
Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled.
> On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c.
You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies.
> It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems.
No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers.
What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried.
Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?
I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall)
I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right.> Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake.
I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...
Yes I wholeheartedly agree with Macron's quote, and basically agree with your interpretation of it. Maybe you can see we have some common ground here and re-read what I wrote before? My critique isn't trying to reject that there is a problem. Rather I'd say my critique is that your proposed solution is specious and will enable worse things
> not exercising a constitutional right
Except individual users are also exercising a constitutional right. That's the problem - users' main modern ways of partaking in their constitutional rights are being modulated by corporations!
(Just to be clear though, I think the legal system's current framing of the owners/workers of Facebook having a "constitutional right" to control users' speech is utterly disingenuous)
> if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you
Now that the situation has been set up, maybe, and maybe users would stand for this. But verification wouldn't actually resolve their problem when Joe Judgementproof posts fascist hate, they'd become jointly responsible for publishing it. The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
Dismantling it would probably ensure it's ugly af, but maybe if you try to go for one of those TV-in-a-frame things it might not look hideous.
Now why the disable wifi option isn't available on the TV when it appears in the user manual is another matter...
Legally, since pornography still doesn't have a true definition in the US, someone would have to define the categories as well, and then the hundred million free speech fights would begin.
Your vision is the correct one, in my opinion, "adult content" headers would be an easy lift for web technology. But the ad agencies and information agencies (often the same) are spending all of the money to make sure nothing like that happens.
I just want everyone to be clear on why it isn't happening.
This is also the same reason why early versions of Android had incredibly fine-grained permission controls that was stripped out... can't have users blocking inter-app marketing key coordination after all.
> The problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry.
I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated.
in reality this cannot be just a simple plain text header. that's way too easily forged and will not satisfy any of the parties pushing for age verification. the "device verifies your age" model means hardware attestation, so the source of that age verification can sign a cryptographically secure promise that the device software has not been modified in a way that would allow this header to be forged.
the app stores might be a less than ideal place to implement age verification, but it lets regulators sidestep all the messy issues around a distinction between device owner and device user.
ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin...
PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...
POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...
Second, all ISPs could offer in their basic service something like DNS4EU modes, just like they offered email and web space decades ago (optional, nobody was forced to use them).
DNS4EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS4EU#Public_resolver
Parents would only need to configure the account to "child". Laws could force companies to properly tag their pages and sites. And privacy would be preserved.
Instead we have to keep on fighting the Crypto Wars. The childs are just a decoy, the target is destroying basic rights.
Clipper chip war, eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip#Backlash
Part of me has wondered if there could be a PAC that focuses on pushing for issues that "both sides" can agree on to politicians from both sides. The big thing is it has to be problems both sides agree are problems, and both sides agree on the solutions. The only problem I see is that there's an insane amount of contrarianism from both sides. I have seen both sides of the political aisle flip flop on issues because one side chose one solution this time around.
There are plenty of states including the one I live in where you are required to verify your age to visit porn sites.
If you add up all of the sites that are not hosted in the US and combine them with all of the sites that you can get around the age verification just by using a VPN, would you be surprised if I told you that the total is 100% with most just ignoring the law?
I think in addition to what OP said, the browser/device should let you set hard domain-level filters which are enforced by the browser/device.
This will not be ideal for applications / sites with mixed content, but gives the parent / guardian more control.
This requires locked down computing on the end device, but all of these proposals inherently do - otherwise a kid can always just install whatever software that sidesteps the restrictions, right? And leaving the responsibility on the device owners/makers only motivates secure boot, which is already pervasive on the most relevant devices - phones and tablets.
Your proposal puts liability directly onto websites themselves, regardless of the end user/device. This would push websites into demanding remote attestation, which is at the early days of being pushed (safetynet, wei, etc), and is the thing that is really primed to destroy general purpose computing. You know all those "verifying your device" followed by endless CAPTCHAs that are everywhere these days? Imagine that, on every site, and no way to get around it besides installing a genuine copy of either Windows 2028 or macOS 28 Pyongyang.
But then HN would still riot, because you would need to require all apps to be approved by a central authority (no unauthorized browsers) OR you need to lock down browser engines to those that respect the list somehow (maybe by killing JIT, limiting network connections).
I've learned long ago, as have politicians, there is zero solution that makes tech people happy... so move forward anyway, they'll always complain, you'll always complain, there is no tolerable solution but the status quo, which is also untenable.
The owner of a device could prevent the installation of third-party apps or app stores. That does not require having central approval.
I don't think you need to do that. You can pass a law without creating a technical mechanism that automatically enforces the law. The law doesn't even need to be perfect.
So what if you can still patch a browser yourself. Kids can steal cigarettes but laws against selling cigarettes to kids are still broadly effective.
So what if its technically possible for a vendor to ship a violating browser. Go after violaters with the legal system, not with the OS.
So what if there's a foreign vendor with a violating browser out of the reach of the law. You'd still have made the ecosystem vastly better even if there's gaps and loopholes.
See also in the 1980s Nancy Reagan: “Don’t sniff glue to get high”, Kids: “You can sniff glue and get high!”