The one wildcard is that RFKj is polling better than any other member of the administration as well as most Republican senators.
I don't think the admin planned to be held hostage to this doofus, but they can't really fire him or force him to follow a plan. I certainly don't think "pick a fight with Tylenol" was on Trump's todo list at any point, rather he got boxed in to having to say something rfklike.
So this may be less "the plan all along" and more "shit where are the brakes on this thing?"
In the current world of ActivityPub and ATProto, and of numerous server implementations for those, it's pretty easy to set up a new social media site. And from watching my kid and their friends habits, most of these kids want small social media experiences with a close social group (e.g. discord).
So it seems like a logical result of these bans will be groups of kids running their own small social media sites and federating in to one of the larger federated networks. You could set this up cheaply in a few hours with an ActivityPub site, for example, and there are hosting services that don't enforce the specifically American age cutoffs or require credit cards (e.g. because they are shady af and deal in crypto).
So would these users be obliged to ban themselves from their own sites, or would the sites categorically escape the ban by their small size (how does federation count users?), or something in between? It seems hard to know, and not really considered in e.g. the Massachusetts legislation.
Well, it doesn't have to be bribes, give them credit, it might be backdoors.
No need to do bribes when you can just log in to anyone's network and start mitm'ing their bank accounts.
But it's probably both.
The one wildcard is that RFKj is polling better than any other member of the administration as well as most Republican senators. I don't think the admin planned to be held hostage to this doofus, but they can't really fire him or force him to follow a plan. I certainly don't think "pick a fight with Tylenol" was on Trump's todo list at any point, rather he got boxed in to having to say something rfklike. So this may be less "the plan all along" and more "shit where are the brakes on this thing?"
Edge case: Sites run by minors
In the current world of ActivityPub and ATProto, and of numerous server implementations for those, it's pretty easy to set up a new social media site. And from watching my kid and their friends habits, most of these kids want small social media experiences with a close social group (e.g. discord). So it seems like a logical result of these bans will be groups of kids running their own small social media sites and federating in to one of the larger federated networks. You could set this up cheaply in a few hours with an ActivityPub site, for example, and there are hosting services that don't enforce the specifically American age cutoffs or require credit cards (e.g. because they are shady af and deal in crypto). So would these users be obliged to ban themselves from their own sites, or would the sites categorically escape the ban by their small size (how does federation count users?), or something in between? It seems hard to know, and not really considered in e.g. the Massachusetts legislation.
Backdoors ahoy
Well heck, I guess I now have to assume that my eeros have US government backdoors in them. sigh.
Well, it doesn't have to be bribes, give them credit, it might be backdoors. No need to do bribes when you can just log in to anyone's network and start mitm'ing their bank accounts. But it's probably both.
Since copyright notice-and-takedown exists, and likewise as to csam and so forth, ... probably not.