321–330 of 671 posts
Now this is what open source development should look like. I cannot believe a few days ago I was thumbing through an email thread on freedesktop.org about how they could implement the mandatory government API in dbus. Can they not read their own domain name?
Associating open source with projects that brazenly violate the law is not what open source should look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
> You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simpler explanation is that we live in a world that is more connected than ever so politicians, campaigners and the rest can get policy ideas almost instantly. There is no grand conspiracy, just a smaller world.
Yeah, it's not like there's a literal james bond supervillain who writes books about this stuff and brags about how half of parliament is in his pocket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread is devolving into insults and name calling, so I won't engage any further. Thanks for the discussion.
Before edit: > You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion. A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
Something remarkable and unsettling is how the age verification debate has popped up almost simultaneously in the US, UK, and EU. With the same logical fallacies. Pretty telling about how transnational lobbies and their interests work. Controlling what children do online is a solved problem: Parenting and parental control applications.
It’s not if you’ve paid attention to political trends for the last 15 years. Everything is happening at the same time in every country. It’s clearly being coordinated.
And when this nonsense is defeated, I’d like to see aggressive prosecution wherever we can get it.
Why are Linux operating system providers taking it upon themselves to comply with the California law especially if they are not selling anything. Since it is just a downloadable piece of software then it is up to California state to set up a firewall to protect themselves from such harmful software. Let's say I am a generic linux developer who develops variants of Debian Linux while sitting in my basement in any part…
Very common pattern in compliance, if you want to export to a country, (regardless of monetization method), manufacturers and distributors comply with local requirements like for example getting approved for local electrical parameters and implementing specific plugs for local sockets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before edit: > You've started calling me names so I won't bother trying to engage any further. Thanks for the discussion. A note to future readers of this thread: observe the inconsistency between the poster's stated positions and decide whether you believe that their words are genuine (and their positions/advocacy are worth taking into consideration) in light of that.
Resolving inconsistencies between my ideas is the entire reason why I come here to discuss them. I'm just not willing to do it while being accused of bad faith and of having no reading comprehension.
> So if your so called authorities passed a law saying you're required to participate in some atrocity such as genocide, you'd do it with a clean conscience? Okay.
No need to respond. This is just documentation for future HN readers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems pretty annoying for people who sell computing appliances like smart toasters, routers, and televisions, and videogame consoles—do they preemptively start implementing in case a judge decides they are covered? Why not write an easy-to-interpret law in the first place?
Exactly which part of AB 1043 makes you think a "smart toaster" could reasonably fall under it?
> “What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.
Some people are being played like a gosh dang fiddle. Y'all are so pavlovian that you see Zuck/Meta and instantly rage. The alternative to OS based verification isn't no verification. It's cloud-based verification The cloud verifiers have all the interest in the world to making you hate the idea that this problem could be solved at the OS level without any third party involvement
Exactly. And the funniest part is that when Steam implemented cloud-based verification for UK compliance, many people on HN suggested that the correct approach is to verify on hardware/OS level.
If legislators want to create some kind of legal category of child friendly device and put requirements around it, maybe that’s ok. Until they attempt to ban, restrict, or otherwise inconvenience non child friendly devices, and I guess I no longer have confidence that they won’t attempt that. At this point I’m only in favor of market based solutions and IDGAF if that fails.
Our country is apparently incapable of intelligent, fair legislation, and it’s going to be the end of us as a society.