Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I have a sneaking suspicion that if one cuts through all of the details, what one will find is that the thing that really sets this proposal apart, and has earned it Silicon Valley's support, is that it's complex and/or expensive enough that established megacorporate social media will be able to meet its provisions but new startups will not, so itwill serve as a barrier to entry to protect their oligopoly.
Absolutely. What's really frightening though is that companies will now have your real identity, so if the Regime doesn't like something you post they can send ICE to your house.
The bill also faces last-minute opposition from a powerful California film industry group, foreshadowing a tense debate between Hollywood and Silicon Valley that may force Newsom to choose between the two iconic California industries.
What I find really frightening is that there's no mention of doing what's best for the people of California.
The government doesn’t like anonymity: can’t have you getting away with being glad pieces of shit like Charlie are no longer around. Jahvol!
Megacorps don’t like competition OR anonymity: easier to sell your data for more money when it’s higher quality.
Bonus they get to pretend like they’re saving children from seeing titties or whatever. Much like gun laws, it won’t do shit except fuck over honest people.
People of who now? I’m sorry I couldn’t hear you over my bill counter
And it opens the door to even more data collection
It will also force anyone with anonymous accounts it accounts using game info to out themselves.
This! ☝
Feel free to find where it says that...
Did you not understand the phrase " I have a snesking suspicion that" or did you just miss it entirely?
My general point is that saying "I suspect that [something I could have checked]" is the worst kind of lazy cynicism. Just... read it? Or if you don't have time, ask the question?
The US governments including the state of California, and Silicon Valley are the cynical pieces of shit and we all know it. This is connecting everybody's ID to their IP address to be cataloged and everything they do by a novel means.
A database that lower level government and politicians and muckity mucks in the business world and foreign intelligence agencies and hackers will be able to access.
How is this connecting people's ID to their IP address when this does not involve anything to do with people's ID?
How did you manage to not only not read the article, but also fail to read the second highest top-level comment which points out exactly this?
This, by the way, is exactly why I think the comment I reply to should not have been made: it's contributing baseless suspicion and cynicism, and when other people read it, it arouses their suspicion, but without any remnant of whatever tenuousness may have been possessed by the original commenter. You aren't saying "I have a suspicion" you are saying "this is connecting..." as if you know it. But you don't know it - you haven't even read about what you're talking about.
Making the parents sign the disclaimer introduces a database that these politicians and lower level government officials have access to. This is a lawyerly and run around doing the same thing while still having deniability to be shitty with anybody taking issue with it, which is you. You either trust politicians, or are being dishonest here.
What database are you talking about? The database of Google accounts? That already exists. Government officials don't (as far as we know) have access to it, and in any case that is not something this would change. Right?
Can you be specific about what new information (or access) this bill would introduce? The only thing the article or from my (non-exhaustive) reading of the bill introduces is that accounts would now have to have age bracket information in addition to the information they already have. How will that allow anything nefarious or harmful?
First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.
Second of all, this is locking down the internet. Make no mistake, it is a worldwide phenomenon, California is trying to be sneaky to fool the dumb shits that do not know what is going on. I am sure they have plenty of dumbasses and influence agents and trolls too push their point of view online as well to fool said dumb shits.
Those of us in reality know better though.
First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.
If you believe that, then why do you believe this bill will make the situation any worse?
This is a question I already asked but which you didn't answer.
Because the state government would collect the information about which person where signed the disclaimer about not letting kids do whatever and would have that connection between IP addresses and names and everything else they have done. This is not hard to understand.
California is doing what Europe is doing in a sneaky way trying to rat fuck privacy.
The words "disclaimer", "waiver" and "sign" do not occur in the bill. Whatever process you think exists does not, because, again, you haven't bothered to understand what the bill is about. It's not getting anyone to sign any disclaimer, so that information, whatever it might be, cannot be newly collected.
If you disagree, you need identify - preferably by referencing the actual clauses of the bill that I linked above - what new thing the bill introduces, and what harm that is likely to lead to.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses that they can use to identify anything anyone has said at any time in coordination with the dad Brokers they can easily buy information from. You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs well ignoring the real purpose here. We both know it. Or I hope we both know it cuz otherwise you are not very observant.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses
Why do you believe this?
You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs
I am trying to get you to do the bare fucking minimum to convince me that what you fear has anything to do with this article.
Did you not understand the phrase " I have a snesking suspicion that" or did you just miss it entirely?
Speaking for myself here, FishFace may differ
No one here seems to have read the article.
This bill will NOT require ID uploads or any official documents. It is simply mandating a setting that upon device setup that a parent must state the age of the user using the device. That's it.
Sounds more like a legal framework for the companies to absolve themselves of the responsibility of protecting kids if they happen to see adult content. They can point and say it's the parents fault for not inputting the age setting correctly.
It passed the assembly unanimously.
Companies shouldn't be responsible that is what your parents are for.
If you support a minimum drinking age enforced by ID checks, you disagree with your own statement. I'm not saying you do, just that it's a pretty general statement that in practice most people disagree with. Movie tickets and games sold directly to kids will generally have to be rated for the age of kid too. You can disagree with that, but we're already at a place where that's happening. I'm not saying it's the best way to go about it, but people seem fixated on this talking point and I don't see people mentioning how this is basically already done with lots of media.
The device isn’t sold to the child, it’s sold to the parent. There is zero similarity between a parent buying a phone and handing it to the kid unmonitored, and a bar selling a beer to a 13 year old.
If phones were somehow rated M for mature or something and parents had to be with their child for purchase and there was similar messaging as to with smoking or drinking or video game violence PSAs, I think we'd be in a different place. I bought my own phones with my own money as a kid, not as young as 13, but definitely underage. If my parents thought it was going to lead to the kind of harm people are positing kids are being exposed to now, they would not have allowed much less accompanied me to get one if that was required.
If they're doing this because they think unrestricted phone access is as harmful as they think violent games or alcohol or smoking are, then it makes sense they want to similarly restrict phone access for children. Phones don't have as robust a child protection infrastructure as a lot of parents want, or the way to implement it currently is too difficult for parents to understand. I'm not saying this needs to be done, or makes sense, but companies regularly are expected to comply with child protection laws. That's why no matter what, certain medications come with child resistant packaging. They don't care if you have a child or if there's any way a child could get access, they assume it and add that protection in. I don't think pharmacists or doctors are giving kids drugs directly, and yet the childproof caps are still a thing we all have to deal with. You initially suggested that companies are not responsible for child safety, but obviously they have been previously. These are compromises we make as a society. I'm not saying they are good, just that it's already a thing.
Who do you think should determine the "m" rating? Let parents parent. And force parents to parent or punish them for spawning. Don't punish me (society) or the child.
I'm not suggesting they should be rated. Just pointing out that society already expects companies to make accommodations for children so that's not a great argument. This is not asking for ID or anything. Just asking to select general age group when setting up the device. I'm not saying I support that, I just don't think most people would call that a "punishment". Your first comment indicated you thought companies had no responsibility to protect children but current laws and society seem to suggest otherwise. I don't think yours is a good argument against what is happening and it is unlikely to convince others to your side. Judging by your usage of "spawning" it seems like you probably aren't aiming to seem well reasoned, so it's unlikely my statements are relevant to your aims anyway.
Don't let your feelings about a subject interfere with facts and the truth.
You are absolutely right, but that doesn't stop a shitty lawyer from suing companies for it.
We also shouldn't have to put dumb warning labels on sleeping pills that tell people not drive cars or operate heavy machinery, but we do because a lawyer made an argument and won somehow.
I love it every time you open a pill bottle you need to connect to Internet and have ai scan your face and id to prove you're an adult. Hmm so you want to take warning labels off and have the dumb people fight the lawyers to the death? I accept your proposal.
Hollywood's concern feels like splitting hairs too, or software issues that are simple to overcome:
The Motion Picture Association, which represents major film studios including Amazon and Netflix, argues it would override their existing kids’ safety measures. MPA urged state lawmakers to reject Wicks’ bill this week in a letter, obtained by POLITICO, claiming device-based age checks may sow confusion; for example, if parents and kids had separate Netflix profiles under one account that’s logged in on multiple devices.
Seems like the parents would have to be vetted to make that Proclamation and their identity connected to that IP for that to happen. So in reality this is a betrayal, in a way that makes it look like it's not a betrayal so people like you can say no it's not like that when it is.
Nowhere in the bill text does it say that. Please cite your sources. The bill is less than a five minute read. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025
(Sports announcer voice) He could do it folks! He could cut the knees off of his presidential aspirations right here!
Or, he could put it through, and make friends enough with the terrifyingly oligarchic forces that run our society that he might all of a sudden become the "default choice" in the same way that Biden and Hilary were, and they might agree to kneecap anyone who tries to Bernie Sanders him. And we might have six more weeks of winter, so to speak.
They do not see it like that, they think we have no choice and we'll have to accept the position our betters decide for us. And why wouldn't they? Three presidential elections in a row they have gotten the most unpopular worthless candidates possible in. And the same people that forced them are still in power in the party, still being shitty to the actual left that they cannot win elections without as they ratchet to plutocracy every election.
Damn I really need to stop supporting these companies
Why not force people to identify themselves. Not like they'd go full fascist on us, right?
Right?
Wo sind deine Papiere?
The thing is, the NSA already has all of this info, this is a new database they will be collecting that lower level people will have access to, it will be vulnerable to hackers, foreign intelligence, business groups, politicians. First off they're going to use it to go after people protesting Israel Gauranfuckingteed.
But there is no bottom, there's no end to it. And not only is this cynical piece of shit Gavin Newsome going to sign this piece of shit, he will probably be forced as the Democratic nominee to lose in 2028. Running SD Kindler gentler status quo of plutocratic rot and zero real reform. Backed by armies of influence agents and Bots online being shitty to anybody that wants a solid reform opposition.
If this guy was presidential material, he would have stood up in 2024 and taken the nomination from the universally unpopular Kamala.
That's it. I'm getting a land line and an answering machine. One of the really old ones with the tiny cassette.
This ain’t gonna work the way you think it will tech nazis
This horrific piece of shit bill has just been casually chugging along