51–60 of 243 posts
Its going to be funny when there are married 17 year olds driving cars with guns and children but who can't install linux or access facebook without calling their dad. Why are so many bi-partisan bills so bad?
Because of corruption, sorry lobbying. Big corporations want the data.
I suspect this is really a surveillance bill, but we won't know until the text is revealed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is being pushed by dark money billionaire PACs and lobbyists all over the world. Techbro feudal lords demand total control, de-anonymization of users, and monetization of such data but sell it as "think of the children" "safety". It's also why Flock is popping up to bring Big Mommy while it's using taxpayer money to force privacy elimination and mass surveillance by continuously tracking innocent people.
That also reveals true (at least) two tier law enforcement. Banana republic level of corruption is fine as long as it's called lobbying and law enforcement looks the other way.
We need to look into this sudden "spontaneous" coordination among lawmakers to implement age verification software. What is the common denominator? Whose lead are they following, and whose money are they taking?
I will stop using technology before I compromise on this.
Techbros and politicians, please take note.
We need to look into this sudden "spontaneous" coordination among lawmakers to implement age verification software. What is the common denominator? Whose lead are they following, and whose money are they taking?
There are likely at least dozens of different lobbies that can gain some advantage from pushing this.
Or is there another one?
At the very least, if this passes, the resulting court challenge will provide precedent that shuts it down in all 50 states at once. The downside will be riding out the intervening months before the court decision comes through. Stock up on ISOs and full git clones of your favorite OS sources.
You are assuming that courts will shut this down. Guess what? The Supreme Court is responsible for these laws: https://publicinterestprivacy.org/paxton-age-verification/
Requiring commercial services to adhere to certain guidelines is constitutional, even though the Texas law is a bad one and I think a different court may have slapped down the law. Mandating speech (code is speech) is clearly not, especially for noncommercial projects.
I think the key would be getting the right person to explain how this would be like requiring all authors to include a certain sentence in their novel.
We need to look into this sudden "spontaneous" coordination among lawmakers to implement age verification software. What is the common denominator? Whose lead are they following, and whose money are they taking?