Thread 106579065

Fuck everyone who gives these companies money

I guarantee you use services provided by those companies, giving them your data so they profit off you anyway. Don't pretend you're above it.

>>106579201
>this problem is impossible to avoid completely so trying to minimize it is pointless
I hate the queers who say this type of shit so much it's unreal.

>>106579065 (OP)
>this isn't even about restricting access to porn
>it actually requires operating systems to verify the users age before it lets them install software
What the fuck is wrong with these people, how does this help?
Don't answer that, I already know the answer is they fucking hate everyone and want control they don't deserve so they can shut down anyone they want, and it only helps make society worse.

This is Trump's fault

>>106579365
Most other states already adopted something similar.

>>106579410
If you read the article and the bill, you'll see it only makes them ask. Neither uploading IDs nor face scanning are required, like they could be anyway since desktops don't have cameras.

I'm tired boss... This shit is so patently stupid, it's unreal. Blue state? Red state? Same shit. What the fuck is the point?

>>106579401
The OP said nothing about minimizing. The OP said everyone who gives these companies money period. OP is complicit in what he's blaming everyone else for.

>>106579065 (OP)
das antisemitic

>>106579437
Oh sure, and is there any exception for Linux distros/ FOSS, or are they all going to have to make you enter your date of birth during the install script? What if you're compiling fucking gentoo, they going to randomly interrupt that with a pointless demand to type in a date?
I'm sure they'll just cave and do it immediately because it seems like no big deal, but the point is obviously to normalize age verification before installing software as part of the social contract, that "we all agree to and stop being such jackass". So then, later on, in response to I guess fucking nothing at all, the lobbyist groups can come out again with manufactured outrage, that the operating system isn't using government issued ID verification, demanding that something "we all agreed to" be enforced in a stronger way so it "actually works as intended, children should not be installing software!!!1ONE!!"

>>106579365
sorry, im not going to go live in some flat swampy shithole because you want to pretend your state has "based" politics

>>106579483
>the operating system isn't using government issued ID verification, demanding that something "we all agreed to" be enforced in a stronger way

That is exactly what's going to happen. This bill was shelved a month ago (sent to the "suspense file" which is where they send bills to die). Then, miraculously, it reappeared, got amended multiple times, and passed both houses unanimously in the span of about 2 weeks. Something pushed for this very hard. It's getting signed.

End of Linux.

>>106579437
It also makes them provide the age to any installed software package that requests it. It BARELY avoided making the provide it to any website that asked for it.
And all this time, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS, even though it AFFECTS ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE IN EVERY COUNTRY.

>>106579521
>Something pushed for this very hard. It's getting signed.
Complete guess but I'd say Peter Theil in a bid to make his slopspyware more effective

>>106579559
It only makes them provide which of these categories the user's age fits, not the exact age itself.

>>106579585
That's not the point. The point is, they gave the tech companies a year (January 1 2027) to figure out the implementation. The implementation is absolutely going to require cryptographically signed and trusted storage of the information. Linux is simply not going to be considered trusted.

>>106579437
This is why we all need to go back to desktop. Phones are too privacy invasive.

>>106579653

This affects all computing devices and all operating systems. There's no dodging it.

>>106579437
>Trusting the tranny commie gov

>>106579559
How exactly does a law in California affect someone in Germany downloading software hosted on a mirror in South Korea?

>>106579682
It won't at first. But this is a coordinated effort across multiple blue states. It'll start with California, then as the standard becomes solidified (pushed by tech companies) it'll spread. The EU will love it as it's a stepping stone for ubiquitous digital ID.

>>106579521
What's fucking nuts is that this bill stated as a privacy affirmation that did absolutely nothing until it was amended.

>>106579365
you can just smell people who post like this

>>106579737

It's actually incoherent if you read it through. It defines three things. "Stores", "developers" and "covered manufacturers". Covered manufacturers basically means all operating systems. Somehow, "developers" who have apps on "stores" have to do a signal check before allowing a download. But wtf does that even mean? The developer of emacs has to do an age check before someone installs it from apt? It doesn't really make sense.

>>106579201
Only thing I use is youtube

>>106579065 (OP)
How come Hollywood comes into this? What do they care what people do on Facebook?

>>106579437
The trick is only taking a single slice of cake at a time, until there is no more cake. They've done this with almost every right that they eroded. They call it "erosion" because it's over time, but you can choose "Slow boil" or even the previously mentioned cake analogy.
It all boils down to the word "abridging". It means the first amendment cannot be diminished even a little bit. Not for hatespeech. Not for antisemitism. Not for the children. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

>>106579802
It sounds like some kind of dumb netflix account sharing concerns. It's not going to amount to anything if the big tech companies are on board.

>>106579819
Pretty much. Newson sucks Silicon Valley's dick more than Hollywoods, it's where all the money is these days, it's not even a contest.

>>106579201
Google searches and Youtube are the only remaining thing I use any of those companies for. I'm slowly weaning myself off of it with SearX and Rumble. I will be permanently off all of those companies by 2026. A lot of the tech and DIY channels haven't moved, but if they don't by 2026, then I won't be watching them.

>>106579825
Tech has destroyed society

>>106579877
I've spent a shitload of time thinking about all of this, and the coming mega change. It sucks to say, but I don't think this is accurate. What has actually happened is this:

- computers get invented.
- holy shit, these are powerful. we can make a ton of money selling them to people.
- (couple decades pass)
- holy shit, these are powerful. we can't let people just use them.
- everything gets locked down

But if you think about it - to normal people this is no different than anything else. Pick a consumer product that defines peoples lives - cars, microwaves, books, steel tools, whatever. All of these things are available to you because of the forbearance of corporations. You can't make any of them yourself. So to the normie, there is no difference. One day, the will be prompted to enter their age and maybe take a picture of their face by their phone, and then proceed to forget it happened for the next 30 years.

why dont they just tell the real reason "we want to spy on you and filter out chinese and russian bots" no way normies can eat up this protect kids bullshit.

God damn it, I reread through this, and I don't see a single exception for any kind of computer application. Even something like Blender or a word processor, which have no content, are required to collect the ages of the user (and presumably, account information) the first time they're ran.

To make matters worse, there's no distinction between the developer who wrote the software, and the developer who maintains and packages that software for a particular distro. Does both The Document Foundation and Canonical have to collect my age and account UUID the first time I install libreoffice? And obviously they have to collect account UUIDs. they say
"Request more information from an operating system provider or a covered application store than the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title." That could be anything required to be really sure the user is unique.

>>106579923
It's obviously made by tech illiterate retards who only use smartphones

>>106579201
only google through 4get

>>106579923
>Even something like Blender or a word processor, which have no content, are required to collect the ages of the user (and presumably, account information) the first time they're ran.

Not quite. It's before they're downloaded. If that sounds baffling and meaningless to you, it is. But it is still required. The whole thing is fucking madness.

>>106579933
Yeah the wording of it all seems like it has downloading TikTok off the app store in mind only. I doubt they had desktop Linux in mind at all for this.

>>106579962
Yes. It is the narrowest understanding of "devices" you can imagine. The retards who put this together read it very clearly: "Facebook should be required to check the age of someone downloading facebook before they can get it from Google Play". That's the extent of it. And this simian view of things will be leveraged by the corporations to ruin everything.

>>106579951
It's also every time the application is launched.

>>106579065 (OP)
Nothingburger. Californians can go to the DMV, pretend to be here illegally, and walk out with fresh ID.

>>106579951
No, no, it actually says "(1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched." Stuff about getting it requested when downloaded was struck through and replaced.

You know what ELSE is just fucking great? This kills game modding entirely, unless developers of every single code mod, or any website that hosts mods collects the age (and probably account ID) of their users.

>>106579365
Because Shitxas and other red states are totally free, you stupid nig.

>>106579653
You are retarded

>>106580031
Don't worry. For extensions/mods/etc, only the developer and operating system provider have to be involved. The store hosting the extensions and mods isn't considered a "covered store" if it only hosts those things!

gonna be fun when the gas pump running windows IOT asks my age
when will americans stop electing brain dead boomers to make their laws?

>>106580031
>ore when the application is downloaded and launched

Haha, I hadn't even noticed the "launched" language. Even more insane.

>>106579065 (OP)
All meant for regulatory capture. Can't have competing software. Those AI aren't going to be able to properly condition and monitor you for crimes if they have polluted data. Only the approved bots are allowed to brainwash the population to buy products.

>>106579365
>living in burgerland

>>106580059
How is it not a covered store?
>(e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing[sic] that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

.dlls and whatnot don't "run exclusively within a separate host application", they run alongside something or other.

Ironically, this technically means that if your program is distributed exclusively as a .jar or .py file, and the operating system doesn't ship with openJDK or Python (even if it has them in its official repos), you don't have to mess around with any of this shit, lucky you! But if the OS ships with those? fuck you, you have to check the user's age!

At least non third party software is exempt, so anything in the distro's repos could arguably be exempt, but if, say, WINE doesn't feel like collecting the user's age? Fuck you, you have to use the distro's several years out of date version!

I wonder if I will be required to implement age verification for updating the firmware for the devices I work on at my job.

>>106580091
>gonna be fun when the gas pump running windows IOT asks my age
Get yourself a twofer and buy alcohol at the self checkout.

>>106580122
All of your points are valid, but it doesn't matter. All that matters is how they choose to interpret it. The thing to realize here is that all they are going to do is listen to what Microsoft and Google tell them. And Microsoft and Google will tell them whatever they need to herd everyone into the walled gardens forever.

>>106580122(ME)
FUCK, Disregard anything I said about non third party software, this is pissing me off too much. Yes, stuff in the official repos requires verification too.
>(1) An operating system provider or a covered application store shall impose at least the same restrictions and obligations on its own applications and application distribution as it does on those from third-party applications or application distributors.

>>106579065 (OP)
this a good thing in concept, but very heavily dependent on the underlying implementation.

>>106580151
Yes. There's no wiggle room at all (except for the implementation of whatever standard is chosen).

>blame companies
>not the elected law makers and governor

Hey least he stuck it to trump right! kek

>>106580164
There's an interesting situation here. Everyone (companies, websites, governments) are going to want to standardize here. No one is going to put up with 20 different ways of verifying age or ID. Europe is going with full on Digital ID. UK will want something like that to. Gee whiz, why don't we all just agree on one way to do it? Guess who it's going to fall to to work out the Right Way To Do Digital ID? Big tech companies of course. That's why it's legitimately over.

>>106580229
If there's one thing Big Tech is good at it's standardization.

>>106579439
> Red state vs Blue state
If it's not clear by now, your worst fear has obviously come true:
What would happen if they were working together?

They are. Including all the G7 nations, and probably Russia.

>>106580117
my fucking sides

>>106580117
I hope it's all theatrics.
Nobody in the world is that stupid.

>>106580270
In this case, I don't think that's what's happening. This is blue state retards trying to be clever to look smarter than the red staters they hate. Red states are going for ID-at-use time. This is a privacy violation says the Very Smart liberal. If we just passed a law that made it a legal requirement to ONLY check age and nothing else, and we made it so that it had to be absolutely everywhere at all times, we would be defeating these evil consevatives. Every website will be forced to simply accept a simple over/under 18 age signal with no other personally identifying information.

That's the idea. But because they are retarded, what it REALLY means is that open operating systems are fucked. You'll have to use a walled gardenm which will violate your privacy 1000x as bad.

In summary: libtards. actual libtardery is what will have killed everything.

>>106580117
Little Marco services jew cock because he thinks it's the Aryan thing to do and he's ashamed to be a communist beaner.

>>106579065 (OP)
Am I retarded for thinking all problems in the internet like CSAM spamming subhumans could be eliminated if governments just mandated logs? I can use any VPN I want, as long as they log my activity. I don't give a shit about hiding stuff from my government, I only care about keeping the rest of you retards from trying to doxx me or something
The government can be held accountable through laws and allowing people to request information on when the government digged through their logs. Normal people can see if the government spied on them unfairly, and pedos get the rope = problem solved.

>>106580362
>Normal people can see if the government spied on them unfairly, and pedos get the rope = problem solved.
Government already has the logs (NSA), yet they lie to you. Government is not held accountable through laws in practice. And Imagine the Government going bad like it did in the 30s. If you are right wing imagine communism taking over if your leftwing imagine nazism taking over. Now all the websites you visited, all the text you wrote all the communication has been logged and will be used to decide who gets put into a gulag/concentration camp

>>106580392
>Now all the websites you visited, all the text you wrote all the communication has been logged and will be used to decide who gets put into a gulag/concentration camp
nvm you're right, so what genuine solutions are there to deal with criminals on the internet? I feel as if the whole infrastructure itself is flawed because there is no good answer

>>106580362
>>106580339
>First amendment anonymity is bad even though every single founder used pseudonyms and had such protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

>>106580164
Good HOW?
There's only ONE concept for age verification I'd consider even remotely good, and it's the following
>you give your ID to your ISP, which you have to anyway to pay the bills
>You want to access age restricted content
>you log into a page on your ISP's website
>This page gives you a token of some kind that only states certifies that anyone at THIS IP ADDRESS with THIS USER AGENT STRING is over 18 for some time span, which your browser and other applications can use
>service providers with small enough numbers of users don't need to bother with checking this.
This should be more than enough control to deter the vast majority of children from seeing stuff they're better off not seeing. Only services need to check user age. Software does not.

>>106580419
>solution requires basic technical skills
this won't fly anon, think of the children

But serious anon: what if the ISP lies? Or the government claims your ISP lied and forces them to close and now everyone is forced to use USAID FAST INTERNET (tm)?

>>106580430
what if the government just break down your door and shoot you and your dog?

>>106580404
>nvm you're right, so what genuine solutions are there to deal with criminals on the internet? I feel as if the whole infrastructure itself is flawed because there is no good answer

There is no solution you absolute mongoloid. People are either free or they are monitored and enslaved. Western civilization is, up until now, built upon the idea that freedom is more valuable than perfect safelty. But dipshits like you don't even see "why cant' we just monitor everything" as a speedbump. Fucking kys immediately and without hesitation please.

>>106580437
>just let me post 'p in peace you dumb fucking retard
strawman aside there is always a solution

>>106580404
>nvm you're right, so what genuine solutions are there to deal with criminals on the internet? I feel as if the whole infrastructure itself is flawed because there is no good answer
First of all, good for you that you recognize the issue with your idea and i hope you use that to educate other people in your life when the topic comes up. Liberty and Privacy are indissolubly intertwined and necessary parts of a free society.

Now to answer your question, a lot of the internet is already logged but lets say there's little to no logging happening for the sake of argument. We need to recognize that some level of crime is just going to be happening. Just like graffiti or littering it's not worth the price of curbing it all. Still there are many options. "Follow the money" being the most important one. Financial Transactions are essentially globally traceable already, any financial crime is likely traceable through the money flow (unless you are a corporate donor to the US establishment, than money is speech and by design untraceable through superpacs). Cryptocurrency makes this a little harder but most crypto is eventually going to KYC be turned into fiat for use. Then there's the usual glowie shit, infiltration of groups, especially drug markets, seizure of servers and domains, finding mistakes people make, etc. It's not much different than crime IRL.

>>106580446
But it's the glowies posting CSAM to try and kill the internet.

>>106580457
Take your meds.

>>106580457
I know of one case at least in germany where some internal documents leaked and the police was afraid to send takedown notices for known CSAM because they were literally afraid of the work they'd have to open an investigation for every file so they just didn't. Took a few journos to do the work for them (src in german https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndk0nfppc_k )

Absolute shitshow.

>>106580178
>he doesn't know about corporate lobbying

>>106579428
Not true, they require the site have more than "one third adult content".

>>106580551
And even then, they only require ID at point of entry to the site. Not at your fucking base computer level.

>>106580117
Doesn't matter, blatant violation of the first amendment. The courts will shred it.

>>106580419
>Pay bills
Doesn't de-anonymize when you use a VPN or other service to actually be anonymous.
Your solution:
>Does not protect anonymity nor verify the token is used by said person.
No age-gate should exist at all. The internet should be banned from children and treated exactly alcohol and other illicit substances to preserve the rights of adults. This means that any person allowing children get charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Jesus you are all retarded: Here's a real solution that would ACTUALLY work:

Require websites and apps to list an age rating in their manifest. Don't sell devices to children. Parents that want to give a device to a child must press the 3 clicks and set a pin to restrict it to sub 18 mode. Devices do not need to support this feature, parents are responsible what device they give their children.

>>106580599
>No age-gate should exist at all. The internet should be banned from children
these two are contradicting and why the gov is doing what its doing now

>>106580614
There's an even better way. Check a negative signal. "This person is < 18." If that signal exists, no access. No existing hardware or software is affected. When you set up your phone for your kids you say "under 18" and that's it. If you set nothing, it it assumed to be 18+ just like today. Easiest thing ever. But since that's not how they're doing it, you can tell that's not the point.

>>106580640
No, actual worse solution because that would require everyone to check that negative signal. The solution i proposed could just default to not allowing it unless a website or app has set a positive this is available under $Age signal. That would allow anyone with an unlocked device to use the web as before without changes but would make everything opt in for children. Which would actually be good. The last piece is that this REQUIRES the parents to be the ones responsible for it. If they give their child an unlocked device and that child finds 4chan thats on those parents.

>>106580623
Read the rest of the sentence.
Age-gating embedded in the tech vs actually enforcing laws related tobacco and alcohol.

>>106580657
>The solution i proposed could just default to not allowing it unless a website or app has set a positive this is available under $Age signal.

There's very little difference between this and this new law. It would still require a positive, trusted signal (and therefore, disqualifying Linux) to get access to things. Worse than the red state approach of "use a third party ID verification system" because you still couldn't use Linux. With the negative signal, there's no reason to ever not accept it because no one is going to lie and say "haha, I'm actually under 18 teehee". So it would be trivial to implement and there'd be no danger of attestation restrictions.

>>106579065 (OP)
the move to blocking kids from the internet is a good one. kids have been accessing all sorts of dirty shit and lowering the quality of online information for nearly 20 years now and the fruits of that are being shown in militant tranny death squads. at current rates half of America will be trans militants by 2150. Order must be restored before the birth of warp technology.

>>106580614
That doesn't aquire user data though...

>>106580676
No, the key difference is that devices aren't required to support this feature and it's the parents problem to buy and setup devices that support that feature.

In essence, i want an open standard that websites and apps can opt into to either allow or block children by a reasonable standard but make it the parents problem to buy a device that supports that feature and set it up correctly.

>>106580689
>No, the key difference is that devices aren't required to support this feature and it's the parents problem to buy and setup devices that support that feature.

Man, that's how it is today. In fact, this was referenced by the Supreme Court in their decision vs Texas. Existing, opt-in mechanisms like content filters and software aren't considered to "work". That's why we're where we are.

>>106580689
>make it the parents problem
that has worked well so far...

>>106579440
being hypocritical doesnt invalidate the point, jew.

>>106580708
>Man, that's how it is today. In fact, this was referenced by the Supreme Court in their decision vs Texas. Existing, opt-in mechanisms like content filters and software aren't considered to "work". That's why we're where we are.

Because of the missing standard. If every DNS entry and every app just needed a .age-restriction file by law, no one would care. I'd say a lot of people even on this degenerate cesspit would agree that's a good thing to have.

The issue with these laws is that they make child protection opt out via ID instead of opt in via "parents taking responsiblity for their children". Essentially because some niggers are to retarded to setup their childrens phones everyone must suffer.

>>106580719
I don't even know what the fuck you're saying at this point. This law IS what you're talking about. Mandatory, device-level signalling of age.

>>106579065 (OP)
I lift while reading biatch.

>>106580725
ARE YOU RETARDED.

I want the device to not signal anything. I want the websites and apps to have a little file that says "this app or website is ok for children".
If you go and buy a phone, by default it ignores those files. No phone manifacturer or linux distro should be forced to give a shit about those files. But if you are a responsible (white) parent, you buy a phone that has the "children mode available" and does care about that little file when you set it up correctly. If it sees a website or app with that little file and it's in the child mode it asks for a pin the parent set.

>>106580710
Shitty parents don't get to dictate rights violations.

>>106580738
kid would just install an unsafe third party browser and all bets is off

>>106580750
No kid would not be allowed to install any app that doesn't have the "kidsafe" signal and unsafe third party browser would not set that signal.

>>106580738
It is you who is retarded.

"I want the websites and apps to have a little file that says "this app or website is ok for children". "

If a website is "ok for children" then no signal is necessary ever. Anyone can use it with no worries. Can you comprehend this? It is the reverse case that is what is at issue here. Good lord.

>>106580760
So all websites around the world that are holy unaware that this law even exists, including chinese gore and porn sites would be ok because they don't send the "this is ok for children" header?

>>106580758
Nigga do you get that preventing kids from installing a non "kidsafe" app is WHAT REQUIRES THE SIGNAL IN THE FIRST PLACE? How else can you say "I am not a kid, please let me install this" than by providing the age signal. Goddamn, stick to huffing paint, retard.

>>106580758
apk install from Bluetooth shared file by some kid with bad parents

>>106580772
Stupid mongoloid that's why my solution requires parents to do the following
> Buy device that supports "cuckifornia kid mode"
> Setup a pin and enable "cuckifornia kid mode"
> Then give device to child
If the child tries to install an app or visit a website that doesn't have the cuckifornia kid mode file or signal enabled it shows a "please enter parent pin" and blocks the installation or website visist unless the pin is entered. This makes it the parents responsibility to give their children a safe device.

Now you are an adult and you buy the same device. By default the "cuckifornia kid mode" is disabled and you can visit any website and install any app you want.

The law should define rules when the signal "this is ok for kids" is allowed to be send for apps and websites and any app or website that sends no signal gets allowed when the device is in normal mode but blocked when in "cuckifornia kid mode".

So the chinese porn site never sends that signal and gets blocked by default for the child but the adults never get bothered by an id check. Parents are responsible what device they give their children and freetards get left alone.

So how exactly does this work with Linux? Seems like Linux would be too important to just kill off.

>>106580796
>requires parents to do the following
which they won't so your point is moot

>>106580775
Doesn't have the cryptographically signed kids mode enabled signal in it's manifest, blocked from installing while device is in kids mode.

>>106580800
Corporate networks will have all the certs they need to inject a positive age signal across the board. All linux machines behind corp networks will just work. Everyone else is fucked.

>>106580837
You could also just use a proper home OS for the home and leave the server OS to its use case, not in your home.

>>106580844
> Just let Indians monitor every key press, goy.

>instant racism
Very afraid I see.

>>106580609
Holy shit.
This country is going to be impossible to unfuck.

>>106580854
>Very afraid I see.

Afraid of culturally/racially incompatible foreigners monitoring all of my thoughts on the fly as I use my computer? Yes, I am actually afraid of that.

>>106580869
This happened so long ago already just let it go.

>>106580844
But what if I use a server at home?

>>106581080
That sounds incredibly dangerous and you shouldn't do that?

>>106581108
I know the risks.

>>106579065 (OP)
it's important that you teach your family and friends about running adblockers everywhere

>>106580288
Brian Mast is serious, and a seriously huge piece of shit.

>>106580117
based send all sharia cocksuckers back to palestine

>>106579437
Pretty much every monitor has a webcam now.

ITT: pedos mad

there are normalfags ITT...

age verification for what, to use instagram?

>>106580576
remind me, how many amendments still stand? one and a half?

>>106582906
To use literally anything, launch any piece of software. And if you enter different ages into your OS and a website to download software from, the developer is supposed to log the conflict and probably do something else with it, to be determined by future laws or past laws no one was talking about.

inb4 seething

>>106583559
>To use literally anything, launch any piece of software.

Not even launch. To fucking download in the first place. Literally gating the download of software to a loicense.

>>106584455
>law-abidingly white as snow
racist pos

>>106580288
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1LmnQRnw8I
Its not

This one doesn't sound so bad compared to some of the other shit. Basically California requiring operating systems to have built-in parental locks.

>>106584706
>verify user age
yeah just parental locks totally not another thing asking your ID

>>106584887
According to redditors there's no actual ID check, you just set the age at the OS and then you're locked out of other things based on checking that.

>>106584706
No dude, it's actually even more invasive and less fit for purpose than even what the EU is doing. It's as bad as the Online Safety Act, but worse, because it's effectively global.

Because you know what they could be doing instead? Just keep a text file in a standard location that only admins can normally access, which, if read, is only allowed to be transmitted to the provider of a service who serves certain kinds of content (decided by referendum). If this can't be found or read, the imperative is to assume the user is an adult. Only service providers even need this, who does it help if The Document foundation need to know my age and account identifiers if I want to download Libreoffice from their website? Why do they need to know but fucking pornhub doesn't?

Every operating system already has ways to let only certain people install software. And this doesn't even stop children from installing things. That's for later laws I guess.

>>106584914
I'm sure it'll stay that way and not be moved to be actually securely verified by thrusty third parties.

>>106584914
There's no ID check specified in the law, but the wording suggests that compliance will be dubious if you don't uniquely identify each user account.

>>106579065 (OP)
I dont use any of those but if I did I would use adblack and be stealing money from their pockets.

>>106579065 (OP)
>Backed by all the big tech
Of course it is
>>106579424
Well from my perspective American right wingers do have a long standing history of eroding personal freedom and privacy for 'security' and 'safety'.

>>106580576
Bro what century are you living in?

remember SOPA

>>106579065 (OP)
>>106579065 (OP)
>ID verification of illegals

California is going to pass it because Newsom is directtly working with them to make it happen.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/08/07/governor-newsom-partners-with-worlds-leading-tech-companies-to-prepare-californians-for-ai-future/

>>106584956
> the biggest, bluest state in the union requiring ID to even create a user account on any computer is totally right wing bro.

>>106579065 (OP)
> government does something bad
> "wow fuck these companies"

>>106579201
Don't pretend that you're human suckdeep

>>106580809
Lol just decompile the apk, modify the manifest, recompile. Not rocket science. Java is easy for this.

Maybe this is just incentive from the state to force minimum technical knowledge back into kids.

>>106580844
I have kids. They get to start with ubuntu server. They don't get a gui until they figure out how to install it.

>>106581108
I have a server in my closet that runs public services via a nginx reverse proxy. This is standard.

>>106584511
Torrents ate back on the menu

>>106585670
this.

>>106585772
It's a gov created problem, but companies could easily maliciously comply by making their implementing a dot file in each user's directory.

But they won't. Companies want this because it 1. Helps create lock in and 2. Further removes general from computing.

>>106579065 (OP)
Liberalism is destroying this country
California communism will be the death of us all, and people will celebrate it because
>muh israel
>muh pedos
Computers and especially the internet were a mistake

>>106586049
California is just doing what Republicans are doing though. They're literally the same ideology and party.

>>106579065 (OP)
>introduce draconian law
>claim it helps protect children and familieis
>normies will blindly support increased state control
Rinse and repeat. Tech illiterate old people have outsourced their parenting responsiblities to a nanny state, and not even a good one at that, because raising a family requires effort the modern man is not willing to expend. The companies collecting this information will exploit it for targeting ads and selling digital dossiers, and the government itself will have more behavioral information on individuals it can compel companies to share with them. All they have to do to rally support for anything these days is promises of increased safety. Fucking hate America.

>>106586116
Cali commies infected red states to get this legislation pushed around the country

>>106586239
Rent free. Are the Californians in the room with us now anon?

>>106586116
This is considerably worse than what Republicans are doing. Red states are requiring ID checks at individual website use time. And even then, only for things like "> 30% of the content is port".

This bill mandates a check for ALL DEVICES and ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS. It is 100% invasive and unavoidable.

>>106586289
Cali commies are constantly exporting their bad policies and if you cant see that thats on you
They did it in Texas (and nearly flipped the state blue in the process!) and now our insurance rates are through the roof and traffic worse than ever
They voted in Cooper and Stein in North Carolina, which tanked the economy
Just because Cali is America's tech hub doesn't mean said tech is any good, especially now as their greedy malevolence grinds the world into dust to earn a quick buck
Californians invented the concept of late stage capitalism to hide the fact that their commie laws are the cause of our biggest problems

>>106586605
It's just entropy bro. Seriously, get over it because it's never going to stop. You talk like it's still 2016. You still think voting is even real?

>>106585670
It's being pushed by the big companies for regulatory capture.

>>106587111
lol no, meds

I honest to god have never believed a conspiracy before, nor have I cared. But something fucking sinister is afoot. All these different governments everywhere just passing all this shit out of nowhere. The public is not clamoring for this, so who is, and why. And why are they so successful

>160 posts of anons talking about signals and shit in honesty, thinking this really is about the kids and not a way to associate gov ID with online accounts
Just kill the internet already, even the adults are being retarded.

>>106587149
Lol GP is 100% correct. Big companies with cash can easily spend to implement this. Smaller companies now have a new barrier to entry.

Who are you more willing to trust with your id data, pornhub or pornfrommycloset.party?

>>106587149
>Backed by Google, Meta, OpenAI
Kek. Copium naivety. It's happened in every industry.

>>106579065 (OP)
>not backed by Microsoft, Apple, or Linux Foundation
So the people who actually need to be behind it to make it work aren't lmao

>>106587318
>Linux
Linux depends on free software, and are fundamentally opposed to any measure that removes FOSS.
>Microsoft Entra
>Apple Account Digital ID
These 2 despite not being mentioned have already started to implement the law inside their operating systems.
>Google, Meta, and OpenAI don't matter.
Are you retarded?

>>106587190
It's part of project 2025, so of course the shills here are not going to comment against it.

>>106587339
>Linux
All you need to do is tell Linus that Russians support internet freedom and he'll work against it

>>106587349
>it's just one side
Wrong. The left was pushing this shit with de-anonymization to rid the internet of "hate speech" and "cyberbullying". Look at the party associated with writing the bill.

>>106587377
>Unhelpful speculation to the conversation.
K. I'm sure someone will tell him and he'll just automatically support it. Until then, it remains to be seen.

>>106583251
>>106584963
If it applies to US citizens they will indeed nuke it. Just because you don't understand some court decisions doesn't change the fact they will if it applies to citizens.

14th due process as well which is why it isn't just a mere 1st issue.

You can't claim "muh national security" here.

>>106579065 (OP)
Yep. Soon Google, Facebook, and Apple will be announcing an age verification system for businesses to use so they don't need to be liable for personal info leaks.
They're already forecasting this security avenue will be a billion dollar industry in the future and of course it would be when they're lobbying for it all over the world.

>>106586049
>"liberalism"
Do you even know what liberalism is? Do you even know who Locke is? This is why I hate conservatards just as much as the left. Totally fucking clueless.

Picrel

>>106587515
Punching to the right has put classical liberalists into the fascist camp, chud.

>>106587454
>You can't claim "muh national security" here.
Did you just wake up from the 20th century? Everything is a political, national security issue now. The country is losing its collective shit because a youtuber got shot.

>>106579065 (OP)
Probably doesn't matter
https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-mississippi-facebook-youtube-2113738

>>106586049
"liberalism" hurrdurr see above GOP law in Louisiana. Not that either side is actually liberal.

>>106580047
Kill yourself jeet

>>106587454
The passing of the Patriot Act would beg to differ. The same act that was rubberstamped through both parties.

>>106587226
I've only ever mentioned it to highlight how utterly unfit for the bill's own stated purpose of filtering mature content this is.

>>106587380
It was introduced it was a do-nothing affirmation of privacy, and in its final form it has unanimous approval. We're not going to stop this with any kind of direction-brained accusations of who's to blame, NO part of the general public is happy about it, they just don't know it's happening. This is one of those things that you can tell everyone about, and tell them what I'm saying about how the push for this is from everywhere and no one wants this. Keeping shit single issue is key to getting anything done.

>>106587603
Lawmakers don't understand technology. News at 11.

>>106587542
"liberalists" yeah didn't read past this point
>>106587549
>>106587578
Meds. Take them. Also, Learn2fucking case law.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1957/481
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/456 (this one is ironic though)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-83 (can't even revoke passport for fucking with the goddamn CIA!)

>>106587603
>Keeping shit shingle issue is key
The current radicalization is preventing the truth from getting out. All the talking heads have been comped into spitting tribalist narratives. If we can't get it into the mainstream dialogue, it will be passed, and if challenged, the SCOTUS will do the same thing they did for the Texas Porn Law. Look at Minnesota, Arkansas, or any of the 24 states that have already implemented Porn ID Laws or going as far to include all "harmful" content like the UK's ID law.

>>106587664
Zero case law presented after 2001 from the secret courts in the Patriot Act? Damn, that due process is strong.

>>106587664
Tell me the SCOTUS ruling on Texas HB 1181 went.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1957/481

>>106587664
>Meds. Take them.
Which meds? The sleeping pills you took last century?

>>106579437
>i...if you read the article

and if your retarded npc ass lived in the real fucking world you would know how its actually going to go you clueless automaton. universal sufferage was a mistake. mass immigration was a mistake. womens rights was a mistake. you clueless fucks do not deserve the same legal rights as me, you shouldnt get a vote or even the ability to post your opinion. you are so fucking stupid it makes me want to commit unreasonable acts simply so i can safe guard my own happiness. why are you so dumb, why are you so stupid? How do you even function with just half a brain? Someone as defective as yourself shouldnt even be capable of involuntary breathing. You should just close your eyes and turn off, forever. Please stop wasting our limited resources, stop wasting our limited time. You contribute nothing to the world, to our country, to our society, or even to your own family. You are worthless, and we have all become lesser by simply being in proximity to your absurd digital jibberings.

>>106579439
the mono party won, in case you didnt get the memo when 'conservative' trump invited abunch of gays and trannies to his election rallies, and when 'national socialist trump' invited another 10 million forigners into the country. These street shitting fucktards are going to make us digital slaves so they can normalize real caste slavery a generation or two down the line, just like the neo-aristocrats want.

>>106579682
the same fucking way someone running windows 7 gets affected by everyone using windows 11: oopsie woopsies, we put a little fuckywucky in the install to verify your age, i mean opperating system and gosh your old unupoodted garbage isnt supported. No, we wont support a unique version just for you. We, the massive multibillion dollar corporation cant afford to do that. Just show us your id and let us catalog your face. Now open, your mouth. Look up. Tongue out. Yes, that's what daddy likes to see.

>>106587700
Maybe you can point to me where in the Patriot Act it has anything about revoking passports, schizo.

This can only be done if you've been convicted of a felony, or have outstanding arrest warrants. There is the no fly list, but see below.

>post 2001
here faggot!
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-1178

It was originally dismisse, but upon appeal by unanimous decision by SCOTUS they decided in the guy's favor.

>>106587787
This thread is about internet IDs you flaming poof. Nobody said anything about fucking passports.

>>106587725
>https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-1178
That literally has nothing to do with this!
see >>106587787 for actual relevant case law post 2001 faggot.

>>106587811
>Not relevant
This is an internet ID thread you fucking retard. Nothing that user posted was close to relevant.

>>106579065 (OP)
At least it's a mask off moment where it's obvious they don't give a shit and just want your data.

>>106587809
>>106587825
See >>106580117
Follow the chain and read the fucking thread faggot(s).

As for what the OP is talking about see >>106587568

>>106587863
Follow the chain. Passports is a literal derail dumbass, but good on you for supporting the OP, which makes this relevant >>106587725

>>106579065 (OP)
So realistically is it possible to fight against these laws. They are all backed by big money and lobbyists.

All I can see working is going grassroots, getting politicians on side slowly, making privacy and security a bipartisan issue. Biggest flaw is everyone involved against AV laws is.. everyone has to be clean, like, whistle clean. Nothing shady in their past at all that can be used to go "aha, look, these are all creeps who want to hide their FILTHY WAYS" or something.

>>106587880
>Literally can't read
And I'm the bad guy here.
Again see >>106587568
Texas law isn't the same at all. OP's is closer to the Louisiana law which is likely to get nuked once it is actually heard by SCOTUS.

The laws SCOTUS didn't strike down basically all require the site to have more than 1/3rd adult content. Which is such a giant loophole it wouldn't affect anything but pure porno sites.

>>106587925
>>106587880
Let me add that the Mississippi and Louisiana laws are very similar to the Cali law which Kavanaugh has been quoted as saying will likely be struck down.

>>106587925
>>106587970
>can't read
I did read, but I was responded to with a passport derail.. I responded in kind.
Additionally, it doesn't change the fact all of the ID laws are still present, and a "may" from Kavanaugh proves nothing. The only shred of sunshine is the 1/3rd ruling, but there's still pressing doubts because the Antisemitism Awareness Act is still legal, the Patriot Act was allowed to exist until 2019, and we still have surveillance from PRISM and Palantir, which is tangential to internet IDs but still relevant.
All in all, I hope it's a nothingburger, and that small ray of sunshine wins in the end, but again, it remains to be seen given recent events.

>>106579201
I don't use any product of those three companies.
What now?

>>106587970
Let me add that the 1/3rd ruling still "abridges" the rights of adult Americans, and puts the onus other people to raise a child.

>>106588089
There wasn't a 1/3rd "ruling", just that the ones SCOTUS didn't strike down all have that provision or something similar.

Requiring social media or devices in general to need IDs is a huge departure from just requiring it to view "adult content". The purpose of these laws are different and requiring IDs to merely download an app is different.

It isn't likely these will survive legal scrutiny.

>>106588107
Indeed, but it isn't the same as the Cali, Louisiana, and Miss. laws.

I had to address the passport thing because that one without a doubt would be nuked by the courts. I can't say 100% on the Cali, Miss, and LA laws but I still think they won't survive.

>>106588128
>There wasn't a 1/3rd "ruling", just that the ones SCOTUS didn't strike down all have that provision or something similar.
Right. It was shortened for quick reference. It could have been stated better.
>Requiring social media or devices in general to need IDs is a huge departure from just requiring it to view "adult content".
>The purpose of these laws are different and requiring IDs to merely download an app is different.
>It isn't likely these will survive legal scrutiny.
I do hope your assessment is correct, but I still have my reservations as previously stated.
>I had to address the passport thing because that one without a doubt would be nuked by the courts. I can't say 100% on the Cali, Miss, and LA laws but I still think they won't survive.
At least it wasn't an intentional derail.

>>106587787
>This can only be done if you've been convicted of a felony
Oh thank god. I was worried our legal system might be corrupt. Luckily nobody has ever had a felony wrongly pinned on them.

>>106587656
I mean we can certainly blame the lawmakers. 96 of them decided for 8 billion people what computers are like. It's almost a lucky break at this point that we can actually blame all of them.

>>106588471
That's representative democracy, retard. It's what you signed up for. If you don't like it, leave.

>>106588204
You know the sad thing is that it doesn't actually go away if this doesn't survive legal scrutiny. Google, Apple, and Microsoft can just deploy their date of birth access APIs and let them sit in their operating systems and impose age verification on their own repositories, claiming they were forced, and then never actually get rid of that if the mandate ends.
>>106588508
Representative for 39,663,800 people, not 8,230,000,000.

>>106588534
>Google, Apple, and Microsoft can just deploy their date of birth access APIs and let them sit in their operating systems
I have no doubt the backdooring verification to an identity will continue. Boycotting the companies is the only way forward, but even that doesn't seem like a path to victory because NPCs are going to go with convenience and what they know.

>>106588508
I'm finding myself thinking fragmenting the big parties further won't be the worst thing in the world. Maybe have more of a coalition system.

Laughing at all the seething against this. So many people are going to be exposed in the next few years. Probably have to build all new jails to hold the nonces.

what happened to make you all so aggressively retarded? it's been like this as long as i can remember, even before the digital era. everyone is just really fucking stupid and have a nebulous grasp of even five years worth of prior history. what's up with that?

I didn't realize there were so many kids on this board lmao

So I've been thinking about this, and I don't really see this law as a threat to free & open-source software. There are ways to implement age verification that don't leave Linux, BSD, etc. out.

>>106589026
But that begs the question, how would you even do that.
I think if there's any chance of giving the other parties a chance, it would have to come from changing how voting works. Specifically, one thing I think we need regardless is to stop forcing people to vote for a candidate they hate the least, and be able to use their vote to instead subtract one vote from a candidate they hate the most, with the caveat that only a net positive total gets you into office (unless everyone has negatives, then the least negative count wins it).
>>106589140
Yeah, and what would you suggest doing? Go on, suggest it, see how long your post stays up.
>>106589229
Doesn't change the fact that apt doesn't need to be telling Canonical your age and probably a bunch of other account information fifty times every time you run apt update. FOSS and hobby developers do not need and can't handle the burdens of setting up their own server to receive logs of downloads from up to 8 billion people and 8 billion more servers. There's no good reason for this, so it shouldn't happen.

>>106579439
>Blue state? Red state? Same shit. What the fuck is the point?
Voot LoLbertAryan like me and STILL fucking lose all your rights but at least you'll have the moral high ground.

>>106589229
Doesn't matter if there is a way. It violates the 1st Amendment right to anonymity.
Find a way without violating the rights of adults because only then is it actually legal.

>>106588508
>If you don't like it, leave.
How about you make the US the 110th country where your people aren't welcome?

>>106587549
thats just you man. youre just posting emotionally, all you can control is your own reactions. that weeb pedo is more in control of his mind than you, think about it.

>>106589507
There's no right to anonymity in the first amendment. But I think this counts as unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to not self incriminate.

>>106594420
Wrong

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/anonymous-speech/