Or even the opposite analogy. A guy goes to a bar that has an ID requirement. Has a few drinks. Meets a girl. They end up having a conversation and she and he hook up.

A week later, the cops show and the guy is charged with a sex crime because the girl was under 18 even though:

• By all appearances she was of a similar age to him and consenting
• She was in a place where only adults would be expected to attend
• The ID requirement of the establishment meant that she should have been well above 18

So what’s the liability of the bar, both towards allowing underage patrons and allowing them to hook up with older individuals while potentially intoxicated? Could they be sued and/or shut down? How does that story change if the bar was known to look the other way on underage patrons, or not properly check ID? How about if the girl in question was known by some of the staff? How about if the man knew that underage patrons were not uncommon.

Who has a case against the bar: the man; the girl or her parents; the police; or maybe all of them?

Nobody should applaud an establishment working under the rules and doing their best being shut down, but when that establishment has a known history of illegal activities on their platform/premises there’s a case that can be built against them.

That said, the internet is not a bad, and as a globally accessible platform with no physical presence validating ID and policing users/content can be quite difficult. Hell, we see that here on Lemmy with a not insignificant number of people who engage in illicit activities or troll .