Right, but the law doesn’t prohibit me from farming turnips*. It prohibits me from running a website without doing certain things. That’s what will be enforced, in escalating fashion up to and including violence.

If someone “asks” me to do something, they usually don’t mean “otherwise I will take your money and/or jail you”. But all laws have that threat, otherwise they wouldn’t mean anything. Hence why I take issue with saying the govt is “asking” us to do something - even though that thing is good and honorable, it’s still not an “ask”.

*well, I mean, there’s probably mountain turnip preservation zones or something, where it would prohibit me from farming mountain turnips.

What do you propose instead? All governance has force at its roots.

Certainly, no disagreement there. What I propose is that we avoid being cavalier about the implications of creating law.

Using the force of government is, or should be, a serious affair, and I think we water it down by using language like “they’re just asking”, etc. The force of government never “just asks” - when Trump was deporting people, no one (reputable) said they were “asked to leave”.

That sense of seriousness about government force would help us see clearly what is, and is not, worth bringing government into.

I really do love the fact that mass deportation and the digital equivalent of building codes are being treated as equivalent. Peak HN.

I don't think anyone is really unclear on law. You are expected to follow it, lest you be punished.