411–420 of 525 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawmakers should have foreseen this would be the consequence of the law and not have gone through with it.
The law does mandate that opting out should be as easy as opting in. The choices are meant to be equal. It is simply that no one is actually compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like how browsers made a do-not-track feature that got ignored by websites because there was no consequence?
Browsers can literally chose not to store cookies... There is no need to bring trust in the equation.
For example, firefox's "strict tracking protection" setting also breaks a bunch of websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fun fact: in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that postal workers cannot filter out mail by the owner’s request. It makes a bit of sense, since the mailer had already paid, but the main justification (iirc; it was years ago that I read the opinion) was that a postal service should be neutral and trusted to deliver.
Fair enough. Most advertising isn't individually posted to each address because that's expensive - they hire their own guy, who isn't a postal worker, to go around and put it in everyone's mailbox. It's like paying one cent per email to prove it isn't spam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech companies could have headed off this legislation 15 years ago by just solving the problem as Bender suggested. But they wanted to pretend they had no social responsibility to not deliver filth to children, and so now the legislators are involved and they get to deal with that. I have no sympathy.
Here's one thing Apple did well on. Their screentime settings also work in the browser. It could be better, but at least it's something if you set up your kids device properly.
Who is actually writing this very concerning California Internet legislation, which will ultimately affect the entire nation and world? Did someone write California Internet legislation without consulting any California Internet companies? Did some California Internet companies write California Internet legislation? Did some other party write California Internet legislation?
> Who is actually writing this very concerning California Internet legislation, which will ultimately affect the entire nation and world? Why would it affect the entire world? One technological backwater is Having A Massive Sad over people using rude words on the internet, so they think they can tell everyone else what do to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. More laws about internet services = less new competitors coming into the market, because the barriers to entry are too high.
Well, if the concern is they might miss out on revenue from a small child accessing their site and they are not a child specific site then perhaps they should be pushed out of the market one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
telling Debian it should ask you during setup whether you're over 18 (which you're allowed to lie about) is the same as North Korea now?
"telling" is a really curious euphemism for forcing volunteer Debian developers at gun point or they'll get thrown in jail. People in recent history seem to have forgotten that this is how governments enforce laws. If it was not, why would anyone bother obeying the laws if they didn't like them? Governments are dangerous monopolies on force and the use of that force shouldn't be casually tossed out like candy at a pa…
Do you think the rule that children's toys can't contain lead is equivalent to living in North Korea? That's the same kind of law as this one.
You also have a lot more flexibility to negotiate on product quality. If you have a good reason why you can't meet normal product quality standards because your product is sufficiently different from the normal products in that category, you can usually put a prominent warning label on it to cover your ass and then you're fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People also wanted to smoke cigarettes but they got fierce opposition from their parents. That's what parents should do. Maybe we should teach parents how to be parents instead of imposing draconian age checks (read: mass surveillance).
This seems like a poor example, because we _also_ made it illegal for minors to buy (and smoke?) cigarettes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fun fact: in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that postal workers cannot filter out mail by the owner’s request. It makes a bit of sense, since the mailer had already paid, but the main justification (iirc; it was years ago that I read the opinion) was that a postal service should be neutral and trusted to deliver.
Fair enough. Most advertising isn't individually posted to each address because that's expensive - they hire their own guy, who isn't a postal worker, to go around and put it in everyone's mailbox. It's like paying one cent per email to prove it isn't spam.