158
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
158 points (99.4% liked)
politics
25647 readers
2506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have a sneaking suspicion that if one cuts through all of the details, what one will find is that the thing that really sets this proposal apart, and has earned it Silicon Valley's support, is that it's complex and/or expensive enough that established megacorporate social media will be able to meet its provisions but new startups will not, so itwill serve as a barrier to entry to protect their oligopoly.
Absolutely. What's really frightening though is that companies will now have your real identity, so if the Regime doesn't like something you post they can send ICE to your house.
What I find really frightening is that there's no mention of doing what's best for the people of California.
The government doesn’t like anonymity: can’t have you getting away with being glad pieces of shit like Charlie are no longer around. Jahvol!
Megacorps don’t like competition OR anonymity: easier to sell your data for more money when it’s higher quality.
Bonus they get to pretend like they’re saving children from seeing titties or whatever. Much like gun laws, it won’t do shit except fuck over honest people.
People of who now? I’m sorry I couldn’t hear you over my bill counter
And it opens the door to even more data collection
It will also force anyone with anonymous accounts it accounts using game info to out themselves.
This! ☝
Feel free to find where it says that...
Did you not understand the phrase " I have a snesking suspicion that" or did you just miss it entirely?
Speaking for myself here, FishFace may differ
My general point is that saying "I suspect that [something I could have checked]" is the worst kind of lazy cynicism. Just... read it? Or if you don't have time, ask the question?
The US governments including the state of California, and Silicon Valley are the cynical pieces of shit and we all know it. This is connecting everybody's ID to their IP address to be cataloged and everything they do by a novel means.
A database that lower level government and politicians and muckity mucks in the business world and foreign intelligence agencies and hackers will be able to access.
How is this connecting people's ID to their IP address when this does not involve anything to do with people's ID?
How did you manage to not only not read the article, but also fail to read the second highest top-level comment which points out exactly this?
This, by the way, is exactly why I think the comment I reply to should not have been made: it's contributing baseless suspicion and cynicism, and when other people read it, it arouses their suspicion, but without any remnant of whatever tenuousness may have been possessed by the original commenter. You aren't saying "I have a suspicion" you are saying "this is connecting..." as if you know it. But you don't know it - you haven't even read about what you're talking about.
Making the parents sign the disclaimer introduces a database that these politicians and lower level government officials have access to. This is a lawyerly and run around doing the same thing while still having deniability to be shitty with anybody taking issue with it, which is you. You either trust politicians, or are being dishonest here.
What database are you talking about? The database of Google accounts? That already exists. Government officials don't (as far as we know) have access to it, and in any case that is not something this would change. Right?
Can you be specific about what new information (or access) this bill would introduce? The only thing the article or from my (non-exhaustive) reading of the bill introduces is that accounts would now have to have age bracket information in addition to the information they already have. How will that allow anything nefarious or harmful?
First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.
Second of all, this is locking down the internet. Make no mistake, it is a worldwide phenomenon, California is trying to be sneaky to fool the dumb shits that do not know what is going on. I am sure they have plenty of dumbasses and influence agents and trolls too push their point of view online as well to fool said dumb shits.
Those of us in reality know better though.
If you believe that, then why do you believe this bill will make the situation any worse?
This is a question I already asked but which you didn't answer.
Because the state government would collect the information about which person where signed the disclaimer about not letting kids do whatever and would have that connection between IP addresses and names and everything else they have done. This is not hard to understand.
California is doing what Europe is doing in a sneaky way trying to rat fuck privacy.
The words "disclaimer", "waiver" and "sign" do not occur in the bill. Whatever process you think exists does not, because, again, you haven't bothered to understand what the bill is about. It's not getting anyone to sign any disclaimer, so that information, whatever it might be, cannot be newly collected.
If you disagree, you need identify - preferably by referencing the actual clauses of the bill that I linked above - what new thing the bill introduces, and what harm that is likely to lead to.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses that they can use to identify anything anyone has said at any time in coordination with the dad Brokers they can easily buy information from. You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs well ignoring the real purpose here. We both know it. Or I hope we both know it cuz otherwise you are not very observant.