this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
462 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
82518 readers
4019 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn't disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.
no, i cant provide any sources because that's just what i'm assuming will happen. don't get me wrong, it is totally fair to ask for hard evidence of these claims, and the fact is, right now, that doesn't exist.
but just based on my past experience with how the government likes to do things and hypothetically putting myself in their shoes, that's my, we'll call it "hypothesis", on what's gonna happen. my belief is that, at the end of the day, the government and big tech want to collect as much information about the public as they possibly can, and this is the order of operations that they are going to take to achieve that.
What do you think their intentions are, and why?
The intentions for the law?
This ia a quote directly from the author of the bill link for reference.
Now of course the obvious question many people might ask is "are they being truthful?" But that is a question that people will have to answer for themselves.
Yes that is a large part of what I meant by what are their intentions. If you can reasonably conclude that their that their intended goal will probably involve progressively restricting this area of legislation (whether through implications from their statements or the possibility of them not being truthful), then it is not a slippery slope fallacy.
Are you pre or post 9/11? It is very obvious that the slope is slippery.
Non-fallacious forms can also exist. It is fairly obvious that it is warranted in authoritarian regimes to expect progression (regression?).