Ironic headline for a site which immediately throws up a full-page interstitial asking for my email address.
How is that ironic?
It's not.
41–50 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simple "the law requires us to" somewhere in that quote would have gone a long way to convey displeasure at their arm being twisted. But nothing in that quote suggests any arm twisting, and why should google of all corporations be given the benefit of the doubt? They look like eager and willing collaborators.
So why they didn't try to require ID for all the previous years until laws required it?
> In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so what’s the real reason the government wants this?
The ~only reason gov't ever does anything is because they think it looks good to voters. And any given voter doesn't have "wants" or "beliefs", just violent mood swings and social performance. This isn't really even a bug of government's! Government action is very often valuable and necessary. But the incentive structure is such that modeling the gov't as a somewhat-rational entity with well-formed desires is usually…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so what’s the real reason the government wants this?
The ~only reason gov't ever does anything is because they think it looks good to voters. And any given voter doesn't have "wants" or "beliefs", just violent mood swings and social performance. This isn't really even a bug of government's! Government action is very often valuable and necessary. But the incentive structure is such that modeling the gov't as a somewhat-rational entity with well-formed desires is usually…
The government does the bidding of the economic elites. Economic elites don't vote, they buy influence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age.” I don't think Google is complaining too much. Especially if it gives them an excuse to collect credit card data (reducing a significant amount of friction when they sell YouTube premium / google drive subscriptions).
Google could have required people to enter credit card details to download apps at all on their phones, following the precedent Apple had already set. That hasn't happened.
Also worth remembering that selling you stuff is not how google makes most of their money. The sell you as a product. The more people they have on their system the more money they make even if they are not buying anything.
I've had an android phone for many years without ever putting in a CC to the play store. I've bought apps though through Fdroid though.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/la-video-d-eric-zemmour-restr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why they didn't try to require ID for all the previous years until laws required it?
If they want us to believe they're displeased at this requirement, why don't they say so? Google has certainly complained and protested about other laws before. > In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
Here is the full quote.
> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.
> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.
Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.
So are all the Fox News idiots that wanted to come and liberate us from authoritarianism going to do it already? Or is that just for liberal state governments with barely any power that don't share your political views?
Uh, in the eyes of a Fox News viewer, doesn't Australia count as "a liberal state government that doesn't share [their] political views"? What does this comment even mean? It reads like GPT-1 spent too much time on /r/politics
1/8th of the country takes a different approach to a public health crisis and suddenly every hot take American conservative talks about invading the country. But the federal government uses us as a testing ground for technological authoritarianism for the better part of a decade and it doesn't get reported at all, even within Australia, except for on tech sites and other left-leaning places.
If you, as an American, are worried about authoritarianism within your own country, stamping this steady ramping of it out in other allied western nations should be a key priority. But the only time I've ever heard an American news network even talk about Australia was about the Melbourne lockdowns, with completely incorrect facts everywhere, making an absolute mountain out of a molehill.
What kind of problem solves this measure? If someone think that minors won't access adult content that person is pretty naive. Only with TV shows, series, movies, music, and games they are going to watch a lot of violence and sex scenes, and most of us knows there are a lot of easy ways to access to this kind of content outside mass media. Letting the usefulness of this measure aside, I think there should be other wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they want us to believe they're displeased at this requirement, why don't they say so? Google has certainly complained and protested about other laws before. > In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:
You're comparing a quote from an article clearly being written in the context of this Australian law to the actual quote from Google's implementation of DMCa law. There is nothing in your quote indicating they are "protesting" DMCA law. Here is the full quote. > Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online…