161–170 of 171 posts
In the meantime systemd already added handling for Age to the system bus. Next step is to add your race, then income, then who you voted for...
> Next step is to add your race, then income, then who you voted for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Next step is to add your race, then income, then who you voted for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A guess for what's next is not a slippery slope argument, let alone a fallacy.
Age verification at the OS level makes no sense to me. Most households aren't going to have a separate device for every family member and so you will end up with a tablet or computer set up by one of the parents (and thus having their age stored) that will be used by both parents and children. Likewise, people generally won't create a separate account for every potential user.
> Age verification at the OS level makes no sense to me. it's the only form of "age verification" which can be done in a somewhat privacy respecting way (as in at most leak the age) the idea is to "bounce back" the "is old enough" decision to parent controls and let the parent choose (the Californian law doesn't quite do that perfectly, but goes into that direction) and if you sell what is more or less a general purp…
could. But Google, Microsoft and Meta do not want to do it this way. They want to sell your personal data, the more, the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An adult had to pay for the ISP connection Ever heard of free wifi?
I have! And an adult still has to pay the connection charges to offer that free wi-fi. Or provide the funds for a kid to buy a device to connect to said free wi-fi. You can go down the rabbit hole as far as you like, but it's to no avail. At some point , an adult has to consciously enable the child to connect to the internet. Full stop.
In the meantime systemd already added handling for Age to the system bus. Next step is to add your race, then income, then who you voted for...
That is ok. The writing was on the wall for a while. It is time to let it go. It served its purpose. We might as well start mapping out a way without it in a more serious way out of sheer necessity. I know I am.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your link: > non-fallacious forms of the argument can also exist.[7]: 273–311
Yes they can, but claiming a theoretical future event as fact (or inevitable) I would consider particularly fallacious as it's impossible to prove. And I think history also shows these claims rarely end up happening the way these alarmists think it will. Usually when a slope appears, regulation steps in, technology evolves, or the culture shifts, rather than society devolving into some inescapable dystopian hellscape…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If shipping a specific device configuration to the US is illegal, Motorola should not ship this specific device configuration to the US. I do not think our parent is suggesting otherwise. AFAIK Motorola and GrapheneOS are not merging, they are getting into a partnership. They do not have to think or do exactly the same. Apple can comply with both CCP and US demands at the same time without a problem. I am sure Motoro…
Motorola is pretty much only present in US these days, why would they build a product that can't be sold in their primary market? Demanding that OSes outright violate the law because you disagree with your own elected government is pretty insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No but it is one of the building blocks for a verification system.
It could be used in one. But it would need so many changes that it doesn't advance that kind of thing by much. It also gets sites to stop doing their own invasive verification systems.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be used in one. But it would need so many changes that it doesn't advance that kind of thing by much. It also gets sites to stop doing their own invasive verification systems.
Not just "could be used in one", but age verification is the raison d'être for the introduction and existence of these fields. Not sure why some people pretend otherwise when it is obvious.
I don't think the California law makes it easier in any meaningful way to pass age verification laws, considering how many age verification laws have already passed. I see it as something that has real uses by itself and also can get many apps/sites that would have done US-wide age verification to trust the setting instead.