[DRAFT] Online Audience Protection Act

[Cheries]

Looking for suggestions on this GA proposal draft:

RECOGNIZING that freedom of expression is a precious and inalienable right, as to allow citizens to express their opinions freely and without oppression;
FURTHER RECOGNIZING that video services must protect this right;
REALIZING that dangerous content perverting and exploiting this ever-necessary right may be produced on such video services;
FURTHER REALIZING that viewers may not have the prerequisite expertise to recognize dangerous content;
DISGUSTED at how corporations and individuals avoid the legal repercussions of creating dangerous content by exploiting the greed or lack of expertise within such video services;
OUTRIGHT DISGUSTED at how these corporations and individuals produce dangerous content with the potential of harming viewers who might replicate such actions (e.g., burns, falls, property damage), in the pure interest of profit.

This act, with the sole intent of halting the propagation of content encouraging the reproduction of actions endangering viewers, hereby:

1 - Defines “Dangerous Content” as online video or audio content that fits at least two of these criteria:
-a. Made with no concern for what costly injuries or hazards to viewers or the public may be caused by a typical viewer replicating actions in the content, in the case of viewers replicating the content being a reasonable scenario, such as if:
--i. The viewers targeted by the content is below age 12;
--ii. The viewers are repeatedly encouraged to follow hazardous or otherwise harmful behaviors in the content;
--iii. The actions shown in the content require abnormal expertise that an average viewer would not be aware of to identify as hazardous; or
--iv. Viewers of the content are unusually and obviously susceptible to dangerous messages or are susceptible to following hazardous behaviors.
-b. Made solely for profit, with the single intent of propagating a brand or manipulating viewers for themed or branded merchandise or advertising revenue;
-c. Encourages viewers to follow a behavior that causes risk of property damage, injury, or legal prosecution against the viewer; or
-d. Repeatedly actively or carelessly misleads viewers, through the spreading of disinformation or misinformation.

2 - Defines “Video Service” as an internet-based, free or paid service which allows viewers to stream live video content, or submit video content to a public website, and allows viewers to watch live content or submitted content on the aforementioned website.

3 - Requires that those who live stream or submit dangerous content to online video services clearly, truthfully and with initiative at the beginning of the audio or video, for a period of time allowing viewers to absorb the warning, state that this content is:
-a. Not to be reproduced;
-b. Dangerous content, or does not provide the advertised results;
-c. Hazardous or otherwise harmful to viewers due to any other factors obviously relevant to the possible hazards of replicating this content, and why this is true.

4 - Requires that video services supply adequate moderation to protect viewers from dangerous content, by:
-a. Allowing concerned viewers to easily and with only reasonable restriction (solely as to limit spam) notify moderators of possibly dangerous content;
-b. Employing moderators to overview possibly dangerous content, and monitor those who frequently produce dangerous content;
-c. Clearly and publicly releasing guideline pertaining to restriction on the production of dangerous content; and
-d. Limiting public exposure to dangerous content. This can be done by:
--i. age-restricting content;
--ii. banning the creators of the dangerous content; or
--iii. notifying viewers watching the creator’s content of its dangerous nature.
-e. Employing some experts in fields relevant to the videos produced on the video service, as to properly advise moderators on identifying dangerous content.
-f. Allowing content creators to appeal a decision to moderators or moderator assistants (4e) experienced in the field related to the complaint, in order to possibly override said complaint, if:
--i. The complaint has been obviously and in an explainable manner proven to be the product of bias;
--ii. The content is provably benign by parties not associated with the content's producer;
--iii. The complaint is a product of spamming;
--iv. The complaint is provably fraudulent;
--v. The producer of the content was unaware of the danger of the content: this results in the removal of the content, but limited retribution towards the producer of the content; or
--vi. The complaint is provably invalid for a demonstrable reason, proven by the moderator assistant(s) in the field(s) pertinent to the complaint.(4e)

5 - Video services and content producers on those video services are liable for damage caused to viewers or the public due to dangerous content and its replication.

6 - Requires at least 2 hours of education for every student in secondary education pertaining to internet safety and the dangers of online content, and how dangerous content propagates and harms viewers.

7 - Requires that video services, only in cases of repeated, obvious violations to clause 4, causing severe harm to its viewers be, at the discretion of the nation(s) in which this service operates:
-a. Prevented from being viewed in their nation(s);
-b. Fined for damage caused to viewers; or
-c. Made to pay for expenses suffered by viewers due to dangerous content.

[Outer Sparta]

What are you trying to achieve here? Please put the title of your draft instead of just "proposal suggestions, please."

[Cheries]

What are you trying to achieve here? Please put the title of your draft instead of just "proposal suggestions, please."

Alright. Here you go.

[Grays Harbor]

1 - Defines “Dangerous Content” as:
-a. Made without the safety of the viewer in consideration.
That could be very subjective
-b. Made solely for profit.
Congratulations. You just banned every streaming service and their series and movies.
-c. Content that encourages viewers to follow a behavior that may be hazardous or illegal.
Again, ridiculously subjective
-d. Content that actively and knowingly misleads viewers.
Well, at least we won’t have to put up with 24 hour news “opinion pieces” anymore

[Ainocra]

The one eyed man speaks, "Well I've been told that TV rots your brain, is this an attempt to keep the local zombie population well fed? "
"I suggest putting under the environmental tags then." With that he sips his scotch and leans back into his chair again.

[Cheries]

The one eyed man speaks, "Well I've been told that TV rots your brain, is this an attempt to keep the local zombie population well fed? "
"I suggest putting under the environmental tags then." With that he sips his scotch and leans back into his chair again.

I would appreciate a more... clear explanation...

[Hanovereich]

OOC

To clarify, you're saying 'Suggests every WA member nation'? And with all those 'and' words in section 1, there are going to be a lot of criteria for something to be labelled as dangerous. Does every service have to meet every single one of those criteria to be labelled as banned? Then what about 3b- 'Dangerous, and does not provide the advertised results'? Can I, for example, upload a video with the title 'FLYING THROUGH THE AIR WITH NO PARACHUTE!!!!', and I actually do fly through the air with no parachute, but I cannot label it as dangerous because it actually does provide the advertised results...?

[Cheries]

OOC

To clarify, you're saying 'Suggests every WA member nation'? And with all those 'and' words in section 1, there are going to be a lot of criteria for something to be labelled as dangerous. Does every service have to meet every single one of those criteria to be labelled as banned? Then what about 3b- 'Dangerous, and does not provide the advertised results'? Can I, for example, upload a video with the title 'FLYING THROUGH THE AIR WITH NO PARACHUTE!!!!', and I actually do fly through the air with no parachute, but I cannot label it as dangerous because it actually does provide the advertised results...?

First - the services aren't banned: dangerous content posted on one of those services are restricted.

Second - for your example, that wouldn't even be relevant - you that's what you have to say in your required declaration of dangerous content; those aren't the exact requirements for what constitutes dangerous content.

[Hanovereich]

OOC

To clarify, you're saying 'Suggests every WA member nation'? And with all those 'and' words in section 1, there are going to be a lot of criteria for something to be labelled as dangerous. Does every service have to meet every single one of those criteria to be labelled as banned? Then what about 3b- 'Dangerous, and does not provide the advertised results'? Can I, for example, upload a video with the title 'FLYING THROUGH THE AIR WITH NO PARACHUTE!!!!', and I actually do fly through the air with no parachute, but I cannot label it as dangerous because it actually does provide the advertised results...?

First - the services aren't banned: dangerous content posted on one of those services are restricted.

Second - for your example, that wouldn't even be relevant - you that's what you have to say in your required declaration of dangerous content; those aren't the exact requirements for what constitutes dangerous content.

Whoops. I meant video instead of service. Does every video have to meet every single one of those criteria to be labelled as dangerous?

[Cheries]

First - the services aren't banned: dangerous content posted on one of those services are restricted.

Second - for your example, that wouldn't even be relevant - you that's what you have to say in your required declaration of dangerous content; those aren't the exact requirements for what constitutes dangerous content.

Whoops. I meant video instead of service. Does every video have to meet every single one of those criteria to be labelled as dangerous?

Yes, but many of those come as a package. Take 1a and 1d, for example. It's hard to take one without the other.

[Ainocra]

The one eyed man rouses from his doze. "It seems to me that this could very easily be perverted by the assembly to that has a few staff vacancies. clause 7."
Leaning back again he mutters. "If you want to ban them then just ban them don't dace around it." With that he lapses once again into quiescence.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Don't spoiler the current draft and put it before the old drafts. I have no idea which draft I'm supposed to be commenting on.

[Cheries]

The one eyed man rouses from his doze. "It seems to me that this could very easily be perverted by the assembly to that has a few staff vacancies. clause 7."
Leaning back again he mutters. "If you want to ban them then just ban them don't dace around it." With that he lapses once again into quiescence.

A dace is a small fish, not a verb.

[Hanovereich]

Whoops. I meant video instead of service. Does every video have to meet every single one of those criteria to be labelled as dangerous?

Yes, but many of those come as a package. Take 1a and 1d, for example. It's hard to take one without the other.

OOC

So section 1 still requires a video to meet every single one of those criteria, unless you can add a few 'and/or's. Also, your definition of dangerous content doesn't make sense- you're saying, 'Defines “Dangerous Content” as made with no concern...'. That doesn't define what is made with no concern to the safety of the viewer. Anything that is made with no concern for the safety of viewers (which- since you haven't mentioned dangerous content as, for this resolution, videos- doesn't make sense) can now be labelled as Dangerous Content?

[Cheries]

Yes, but many of those come as a package. Take 1a and 1d, for example. It's hard to take one without the other.

OOC

So section 1 still requires a video to meet every single one of those criteria, unless you can add a few 'and/or's. Also, your definition of dangerous content doesn't make sense- you're saying, 'Defines “Dangerous Content” as made with no concern...'. That doesn't define what is made with no concern to the safety of the viewer. Anything that is made with no concern for the safety of viewers (which- since you haven't mentioned dangerous content as, for this resolution, videos- doesn't make sense) can now be labelled as Dangerous Content?

Good point, but 1d(i) and 1d(ii) are both under the "and may also", as not all dangerous content will abide by all of 1d.

[Xanthorrhoea]

Ok, so I have a lot of thoughts on this. It's currently very messy and has a heap of contradictions/confusing elements. I'll start by saying this is not how I'd choose to address this topic, however this is your proposal, so I'll give you my thoughts on how it could be improved.

Overall, it's not very concise. Not too much of a concern right now, but once you're closer to submitting i'd suggest trying to edit and cut down the word count, make the flow of ideas easier to follow, and eliminate as much repetition as possible. Read through it and find where it's harder to read, or where you have to pause to take it in, and re-write those sections so they're clearer. I'd also reccomend using the ordered list tool available on the forum. It will make the proposal much easier to read.

Element by element:

RECOGNIZING that freedom of expression is a precious and unalienable right;
FURTHER RECOGNIZING that video services must protect this right;
REALIZING that dangerous content may be produced on such video services;
FURTHER REALIZING that viewers may not have the prerequisite expertise to recognize dangerous content;

I'm confused by the 'uninalinable right' clause. You don't really address this anywhere else in the proposal, in fact I'd argue that you are alienating that right in this proposal. I'd either expand on the idea and explain why it's NOT inalienable, or drop the clause entirely.

Overall I feel all of these clauses are too short and don't do much to justify your reason for this proposal. Explain more why this proposal needs to happen, and when you can, make use of 'and', 'but' etc to group your sentences more to make it less of a list.

Hereby enacts that every WA Member Nation henceforth:

Very wordy, you can cut this down.

1 - Defines “Dangerous Content” as video content:
-a. Made with no concern for what dangers may be caused by viewers replicating actions in the content;
-b. Made solely for profit, with no intended and obvious educational or entertaining message;
-c. Encourages viewers to follow a behavior that causes risk of property damage, injury, or legal action and/or prosecution against the viewer;
-d. Actively and knowingly misleads viewers; and may also
--i. Provide little or no explanation of reasoning behind actions in the content; and/or
--ii. Encourage viewers to perform a set of actions that bear no connection to the goal of those acting the content, or viewers replicating said content.

This definition needs a lot of work, I have problems with almost every part of it. Firstly, add an 'or' after the semicolon in part 'c'. As others have pointed out, not many videos will meet all four of the criteria here, and and 'or' lets you capture things that only meet some/one.

Part a: How do you ascertain whether a piece of media was made "with no concern for what dangers... [etc]"? How broad are the dangers you have to consider? Is a stubbed toe from trying out a skating trick a 'danger'? This definition also imposes far to much responsibility on the producers of content. At some point, viewers should have to take responsibility for their own actions, and producers should not be liable for other people's complete stupidity. I feel like you need to remove "with no concern" and reword to something like 'Is reasonably foreseeable to cause a typical viewer attempting to replicate actions in the video significant harm' (my phrasing is also dodgy here, so workshop it a bit). If I decide to skateboard at night on the road and get hit bby a car, that's on me. It's not on the person who made a video teaching me how to skateboard.

Part b: No video is made solely for profit, there is always some level of entertainment/educational value. This also contradicts clause 3c, where authors must state dangerous content is for entertainment purposes. It can't be for entertainment and yet have no entertainment message. I also don't really see the point of this clause at all, I'd reccomend dropping it.

Part c: I feel like you ccould merge this with part a, they cover similar ground. Having said that, this is a very loose standard. To repeat an example, does video teaching how to skateboard encourage risk of injury (grazed knees)? What if someone watches the video and breaks into a building site to skate, does that count as enocouraging property damage/prosecution? The current wording could be applied almost limitlessly, you need more restrictions on what does/doesn't count here.

Part d: This, and parts di and dii are also far too broad. Surreal humour, memes and april fool's day jokes count as dangerous under this definition. There is a difference between harmful and harmless misleading content, and you need to reword this to target only harmful content.

2 - Defines “Video Service” as:
-a. An internet-based, free or paid service;
-b. Allows viewers to stream live video content, or submit video content to a website; and
-c. Allows viewers to watch live content or submitted content on the aforementioned website.

I'm not sure why this is a list, it would read better as a sentence/paragraph, and you'd have far less repetition. I'd also argue you should include some consideration of videos being publically available. Otherwise some family's private wedding livestream technically counts here and needs moderators/warnings etc.

3 - Requires that those who live stream or submit dangerous content to online video services clearly state that this content is:
-a. Not to be reproduced;
-b. Dangerous content, or does not provide the advertised results; and
-c. Is purely for the viewer’s entertainment, with no educational or convenience value.

These are oddly specific requirements. I'd change this to generic warningspecific warnings, especially as these will not always be relevent/required. You should also remove the 'and' and only require warnings that are relevent to the video. (e.g. a bomb-making video should not be reproduced, but it genuinely will producce the advertised results and does have both educational and convenience value)

4 - Requires that video services supply adequate moderation to protect viewers from dangerous content, by:
-a. Allowing concerned viewers to easily and without restriction notify moderators of possibly dangerous content;
-b. Employing moderators to overview possibly dangerous content, and monitor those who frequently produce dangerous content;
-c. Clearly stating that dangerous content must not be produced on their video service; and
-d. Punishing those that frequently produce dangerous content, and/or do not correctly comply by clause 3's guidelines. This can be done by:
--i. age-restricting content;
--ii. banning the creators of the dangerous content; or
--iii. notifying viewers watching the creator’s content of its dangerous nature.
-e. Employing at least 1 individual for every 50 moderators with official college or post-college academic education in food science, law, or home appliances (electricity, plumbing, etc.), as to advise moderators in revealing dangerous content.

Part a: Drop "without restriction". It will lead to spam/malicious reports.

Part b: Sure as long as your definition in clause 2 is tightened (see my point above)

Part c: I'd rather you required some form of guideline on acceptable content, rather than some generic statement about 'dangerous content'. I'd also say you need some kind of requirement about the visibility of this guideline, as a line at the bottom of a web page stating 'don't make dangerous content' in size 0 font currently meets your requirement.

Part d: "punishing" is a poor choicce of words here. The goal shouldn't be punishment, it should be limiting exposure to dangerous content. Swap this with a requirement foccussing on restricting access to content that breaches clause 3, either through age restrictions, suspensions/bans, or straight up removing content.

Part e: Drop this. For a start, sparkies/plumbers don;t go to college, they're trades (at least in many countries. You've also pikced a rather arbitrary set of professions to inlcude. Replace this with a need to have experts available with a knowledge relevent to the site's most prevalent content. A website hosting chamistry videos has no need of food scientists/lawyers, but a lot more need for chemists. 1 in 50 is also a rather arbitrary number. What if I only have 4 moderators? Or what if I have 50, but have videos on both law and plumbing? Should I pick a lawyer or a college-educated plumber to be my expert?

5 - Requires that viewers be able to pursue legal action against those who produce, distribute, or moderate dangerous content if:
-a. Moderators were not properly advised on dangerous content;
-b. Viewers could not easily contact moderators;
-c. Viewers were injured, traumatized, or otherwise actively harmed by behaviors encouraged or popularized by dangerous content; or
-d. A video service did not follow the previous guidelines stated in clause 4.

Firstly, people can pursue legal action for whatever they want, it doesn't mean they'll win. Do you mean that producers/distrubuters are liable for damage caused by poor moderators/injury/breach of guidelines etc? Lots of these topics aren't really that harmful. Being unable to contact a moderator does not actually harm the viewer , so pursuing legal action will get you sod all benefit. (Civil) legal action is about compensating for damages caused. No damage, no compensation. I'd re-word this to focus on liability for damages caused as a consequence of failing to meet the responsibilities in clause 4 if you're going to keep it. (I personally think this clause is draconian and imposes too much liability and responsibility on video hosting sites. There should be some element of responsibility, but I think this goes beyond what is reasonable)

6 - Informs their population of the hazards of dangerous content by:
-a. Information on government sites;
-b. Minor curriculum changes in secondary education;
-c. Public information campaigns (eg. Video advertising campaigns, posters in public areas, government statements); or
-d. Informing citizens about dangerous content when they buy devices capable of connecting to the Internet.

This seems ridiculously hand-holdy. Viewers have a reasonable responsibility to educate themselves on the risks of using the internet. Government campaigns and warning labels are far too exccessive and a waste of time and money. I would scrap this entire clause and replace it with one requiring education on internet safety in schools, and having internet safety info freely available from governemtn sources.

7 - Requires that video services violating clause 4 be:
-a. Prevented from being viewed in their nation;
-b. Fined for damage caused to viewers; or
-c. Forced to pay for expenses suffered by viewers due to dangerous content.

This is dracconian. Banning a service for one missed video is excessive. I'd reword this to be more proportional. Part 'a' should only apply to repeat offenders that do not make sufficient efforts to rectify their acctions. Part 'b' should be at the discretion of the nation. Pat 'c' is nominally ok, but has potential crossover with clause 5.

REAFFIRMING that:
I - Dangerous content must be labeled properly as dangerous content. (3)
II - Video services must restrict the production of dangerous content, and moderate already distributed dangerous content. (4)
III - Viewers have the legal right to pursue legal action against the distributors, moderators, and creators of dangerous content. (5)
IV - Viewers should and must be informed about the hazards of dangerous content. (6)
V - Video services not properly restricting the spread of dangerous content can and will face government fines or other punishment.(7)

Drop this bit, it's needless repetition.

With a lot of work, this could make a decent proposal (although my own views on this matter mean I'd probably vote against anyway). I'd reccomend reading through every part of this and noting exactly why you've included each bit, and then see if there's a simpler/easier way to accomplish that goal, and whether that goal is reasonable in the first place. The proposal is very scattershot at the moment, and I think it would be worth going back and seeing what you can ccut, and what is purely necessary for your main goal.

Welcome to the WA. Sorry if I sound harsh, I'm a bit tired, so I was probably a bit blunt. Feel free to call me out if you think anything I said was unreasonable. I give all this feedback so you can keep going and submit this in a state that will have a chance of passing, not to discourage you from trying. You clearly see a problem that you have thoughts on how to fix. I'd like to hear those ideas in the best possible form.

[Separatist Peoples]

"It is unclear what this is supposed to accomplish. Would the author care to explain why this is an issue of international import?"

[Polomon Islands]

What does this do in a nutshell?
Ban inappropriate videos or sites?
I'm seeing a lot of complaining here.

[Cheries]

What does this do in a nutshell?
Ban inappropriate videos or sites?
I'm seeing a lot of complaining here.

Let me explain with an example.
There are a lot of videos floating around on the Internet of "poaching an egg in the microwave"
If you haven't looked up "exploding egg" or don't have a food science degree, you might not know that eggs explode in the microwave, and if those eggs are in boiling water, you can get SERIOUS BURNS.
Therefore, someone might try and poach an egg in the microwave, and end up in hospital with burns all over your face.
The purpose of this is to prevent this.
Now, here are PLENTY of things all over the web that have the same potential to do this: a prank that makes someone slip. What if you do this on a hardwood or concrete surface? Maybe a four-hour-long recipe for caramel that build up pressure, and if you forget about them explode?
These things EXIST.

[THE Grob]

Putting an egg in the microwave does not lead to burns in your face. Unless you have an outdated microwave which somehow runs with the door open, the only thing that happens is the egg explodes, and it splatters the yolk over the microwave. Completely harmless- all you need to do is just clean up the mess afterwards. Neither would putting an egg in water do anything. To censor these types of videos is to deny they ever happened. The population becomes stupid and ignorant as a result of these issues not being addressed or shown in action. It is up to the individual watching the video not to be a fool to copy the actions in the video, not up to a bunch of bureaucrats up at the top trying to sugarcoat dangerous activities for their "safety".

[Cheries]

Putting an egg in the microwave does not lead to burns in your face. Unless you have an outdated microwave which somehow runs with the door open, the only thing that happens is the egg explodes, and it splatters the yolk over the microwave. Completely harmless- all you need to do is just clean up the mess afterwards. Neither would putting an egg in water do anything. To censor these types of videos is to deny they ever happened. The population becomes stupid and ignorant as a result of these issues not being addressed or shown in action. It is up to the individual watching the video not to be a fool to copy the actions in the video, not up to a bunch of bureaucrats up at the top trying to sugarcoat dangerous activities for their "safety".

Firstly, about the egg: that was an example, though I should point out that eggs still explode in up-to-date machinery: the way any microwave heats food can explode a raw, boiled, shelled, unshelled, yolkless, or whiteless egg, even explode after they've come out of the microwave, or if the microwave has stopped heating them.

Secondly: did you see clause 6, which requires education on dangerous content?

Even still, when these things are taking over popular sites everywhere, the average person doesn't know much, or anything, about the dangrs presented by many "craft" "hack" or "prank" content

[Polomon Islands]

Putting an egg in the microwave does not lead to burns in your face. Unless you have an outdated microwave which somehow runs with the door open, the only thing that happens is the egg explodes, and it splatters the yolk over the microwave. Completely harmless- all you need to do is just clean up the mess afterwards. Neither would putting an egg in water do anything. To censor these types of videos is to deny they ever happened. The population becomes stupid and ignorant as a result of these issues not being addressed or shown in action. It is up to the individual watching the video not to be a fool to copy the actions in the video, not up to a bunch of bureaucrats up at the top trying to sugarcoat dangerous activities for their "safety".

Firstly, about the egg: that was an example, though I should point out that eggs still explode in up-to-date machinery: the way any microwave heats food can explode a raw, boiled, shelled, unshelled, yolkless, or whiteless egg, even explode after they've come out of the microwave, or if the microwave has stopped heating them.

Secondly: did you see clause 6, which requires education on dangerous content?

Even still, when these things are taking over popular sites everywhere, the average person doesn't know much, or anything, about the dangrs presented by many "craft" "hack" or "prank" content

so they prevent bad videos on the internet?
Should they just have a "DONT DO THIS AT HOME!" Warning instead of preventing those videos from being posting.

[Cheries]

Firstly, about the egg: that was an example, though I should point out that eggs still explode in up-to-date machinery: the way any microwave heats food can explode a raw, boiled, shelled, unshelled, yolkless, or whiteless egg, even explode after they've come out of the microwave, or if the microwave has stopped heating them.

Secondly: did you see clause 6, which requires education on dangerous content?

Even still, when these things are taking over popular sites everywhere, the average person doesn't know much, or anything, about the dangrs presented by many "craft" "hack" or "prank" content

so they prevent bad videos on the internet?
Should they just have a "DONT DO THIS AT HOME!" Warning instead of preventing those videos from being posting.

Read the actual draft, please. 3a?

[Xanthorrhoea]

Hey, I noticed you just submitted this to the GA. I’d suggest leaving it up for at least a week on the forum, so that people have a chance to give you more feedback. Especially as the proposal you submitted is very undercooked currently.

[THE Grob]

Putting an egg in the microwave does not lead to burns in your face. Unless you have an outdated microwave which somehow runs with the door open, the only thing that happens is the egg explodes, and it splatters the yolk over the microwave. Completely harmless- all you need to do is just clean up the mess afterwards. Neither would putting an egg in water do anything. To censor these types of videos is to deny they ever happened. The population becomes stupid and ignorant as a result of these issues not being addressed or shown in action. It is up to the individual watching the video not to be a fool to copy the actions in the video, not up to a bunch of bureaucrats up at the top trying to sugarcoat dangerous activities for their "safety".

Firstly, about the egg: that was an example, though I should point out that eggs still explode in up-to-date machinery: the way any microwave heats food can explode a raw, boiled, shelled, unshelled, yolkless, or whiteless egg, even explode after they've come out of the microwave, or if the microwave has stopped heating them.

Secondly: did you see clause 6, which requires education on dangerous content?

Even still, when these things are taking over popular sites everywhere, the average person doesn't know much, or anything, about the dangrs presented by many "craft" "hack" or "prank" content

Education on dangerous content? For simple pranks on the internet that might hurt a few fools? I'm not going to waste our precious tax dollars on some idiots who can't read a "do not try this at home warning". Let alone, no government should be wasting money trying to educate people on prank videos that might harm them. If they can't understand or bother to restrain themself from doing something as stupid as, let's say- trying to pull a robber prank on a stranger, then that's just natural selection.

The World Assembly is not a nanny state, it is an organization dedicated to- well, at least it says that it's dedicated to bringing peace and prosperity to the world. If you expect me or anybody else to waste our educational curriculum on a bunch of prank videos you are terribly misguided and are far too paranoid about the effects of these videos. The more idiots that go out of our society, the better- why hold back?