you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 117 points 1 year ago (22 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The bill also faces last-minute opposition from a powerful California film industry group, foreshadowing a tense debate between Hollywood and Silicon Valley that may force Newsom to choose between the two iconic California industries.

    What I find really frightening is that there's no mention of doing what's best for the people of California.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Feel free to find where it says that...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Did you not understand the phrase " I have a snesking suspicion that" or did you just miss it entirely?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    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

    1. No, I did not understand it because snesking isn't a word in my native language.
    2. You did not have that phrase in your original post for us to have missed.
    3. 😜
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    First of all, the information data Brokers collect which includes Google is sold to government agencies that use it without warrant or judicial supervision.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses

    Why do you believe this?

    You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs

    I am trying to get you to do the bare fucking minimum to convince me that what you fear has anything to do with this article.

  • source
  • parent