He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.

what is the point of the OS asking

Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.

Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.

Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.

This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.

deleted by creator

He is the same as Sotomayor and Jackson according to many Lemmings.

Not if they get penalized for it more than they benefit from breaking the law, and California is strict about enforcing labor laws.

Look man, in addition to being counterproductive, the actions you’re defending have a lot of collateral damage. It’s similar to Israel saying that they should be able to bomb Gaza to get terrorists even though the bombings also affect children, which is another example of an action that is both counterproductive and has a lot of collateral damage.

Maybe I’m in a bubble, but I have never seen a single person make the “I have nothing to hide,” argument. Not a single one.

When people post arguments against “I have nothing to hide,” I always wonder who they’re arguing against. It’s never posted as a response to someone making that argument. It’s always posted as a non sequitur like OP and this blog post. Maybe we should make a c/popularopinions community for these kinds of posts. “I think we shouldn’t kill people. Is anybody else with me?” “I think having pizza is better than going hungry.”

Also, literally a Democrat.

There is no money spent on security for union busting in California. California has strict laws against violent union busting.

Unionists didn’t use violence because they didn’t have “legal protection,” they did it because capitalists and police would break their bodies either if they worked or resisted. They’d call in militias to bash unionist skulls, they’d pay them in scrip and prevent them or their children from ever freeing themselves.

Those are all illegal now. That’s why unionizing works now where it didn’t before.

I don’t buy your concern for these communities at all, have you tried to check if there was any harm?

I live in California. Air quality is always an issue, whether it’s from wildfires or avgas from local airports. These cause real health issues, and the latter causes measurable IQ drops in the poor communities surrounding those airports. Industrial fires are something we need to worry about just like Tehranis have to worry about oil refinery fires.

They responded with violence because there were no legal protections for labor unions. Those protections exist in California.

Burning a warehouse is the least effective way to help people. The arsonist ends up in jail, the surrounding community suffers health problems, and the warehouse owners put more security and restrictions on employees instead of paying them more. Unionizing forces the warehouse owner to meet the demands of the workers.

Maybe unionize and strike instead of poisoning the people in the surrounding area, who are mostly working poor.

SEO doesn’t mean that the site pays Google. It’s exactly the opposite. SEO means gaming the Google ranking algorithm to appear higher in the organic rankings without paying Google. In the past, people would do this by creating link farms to game the page rank component.

The fact he still believes we need another conservative party does not look good.

He looks senile. He is.

As for voting progressive, boy, Biden and Pelosi sure were voting progressive a lot of the time with funding police.

Progressives want community policing. They don’t want no police. You’re confusing progressives with anarchists.

But you won’t convince me or many other leftists to choose a lesser evil or harm reduction or whatever false dichotomy you call come up with.

I’m more leftist than you are, and I’ve already convinced several. The key idea is that we should always do the best we can. If the choice is between bombing Iran and not bombing Iran, I choose not bombing Iran. If the choice is between sanctioning West Bank settlers and getting aid to Gaza and not doing those things, I choose the former. If the choice is between teaching Americans black history as American history and not teaching black history, I choose the former. If the choice is between helping refugees and removing their legal status after they’re already in the country and deporting them, you can guess which one I’m going to choose.

While I make these choices, I convince others who aren’t as progressive as me why the progressive policies that aren’t yet popular make sense, so the next time around, we’ll have the votes for it. In just the same way, I convince progressives who don’t think through the consequences of their actions why they need to, so we have the votes not to backslide into regressive policies. I don’t agree with anybody I vote for 100% of the time, but I do understand that voting for them is better than the alternative. Imagine if people who wanted equal rights for black people didn’t vote for Lincoln because he said he didn’t think that blacks should marry whites or go to the same schools (read the Lincoln Douglas debate transcripts).

So I’m hearing then they also cannot manage to keep themselves in order with their overall arching message of Resistance as well.

Nobody is going to get 100% of their members to vote a certain way, especially if their votes don’t matter. This is true for any political party, even your favored one. When their votes do matter, Democrats vote consistently more progressively than the alternative.

Also yeah, let’s not forget voting to fund ICE and DHS.

ICE was funded by the OBBBA. All Democrats voted against it in both houses and even convinced several Republicans to vote against it to the point that Vance had to cast a tie-breaking vote.

Oh also remember when Biden said we need Republicans as much as Democrats?

Biden is senile. He said a bunch of crazy things, but he didn’t say we need Republicans as much as Democrats. He said that we need a Republican Party that is principled and strong. It’s precisely a lack of principles and backbone that resulted in the GOP’s Trump takeover.

“They” as a group did not keep voting Trump appointees. Most of them didn’t, but you’re always going to have some throw away a meaningless vote and holdup in return for a political favor from the other side

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-confirms-48-trump-nominees-at-once-after-gop-changed-the-chambers-rules

And the US used taxpayer money to send Vance to Hungary to stump for Orbán there, right out in the open. In Hungary, using taxpayer money to fund an extremist foreign political party is a scandal. In the US, this matter is too deep in a flooded zone for anyone to care.

Supporting apartheid has nothing to do with antitrust. In fact, there is no law against it at all.

Google does not “throttle access to sites that don’t pay them.” Paying for an ad placement is as old as newspapers. There is no evidence that they additionally down rank sites that have no advertising account with them, and it wouldn’t make any business sense anyway because having nonpaying sites rank highly is what convinces a paying site to pay more to get top of page ad placement.

For those out of the loop, the DNC went a step further and banned all dark money from its primaries, not just AIPAC dark money. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/dnc-aipac-dark-money-meeting/

https://abcnews.com/Politics/dnc-votes-dark-money-resolution-singling-aipac-defers/story?id=131897410

Welcome to 2010. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html

Remote installation via the web has been exposed to the user since 2011. https://googlemobile.removed/2011/02/introducing-android-market-website.html

This also means users can remotely uninstall. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-store-uninstall-button-3614548/

Yes, it’s possible that Google will abuse this, but it would be an easy antitrust case.