I mean, he could still lie. He’d just have to afford one more question

Because there are two doors and only one question. If you ask a known question unrelated to the door you find out who the liar is but lose your opportunity to ask them which is the correct door.

That assumes the other guy holds to his principles in the face of death. If I were the dm, the act of tearing the other guy’s head off and then threatening to do the same to the other one unless granted another question would at least grant advantage on an intimidation check

We can change anything, and if it makes society a better place then we actually have a moral obligation to try

The problem is that “better” in the context of society is usually subjective. We’re talking about a form of censorship, for which change in a positive direction is very complicated at best.

Lawmakers in the US want people to think that ISPs taking responsibility for pirates on their network is a change for a “better” society, for example. Or that net neutrality is unfair to businesses and would result in a “better” society if abolished.

The truth is that it’s a ploy to gather unprecedented amounts of data on citizens hiding behind a “won’t they think of the children” moral take.

There is no meaningful barrier to porn without changing what makes the internet the internet. There are only old tech illiterate law makers virtue signaling about their children while those children run circles around arbitrary shit like this