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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
deleted by creator
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.
Speaking for myself here, FishFace may differ