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

La Ville Derrière

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

It originally had a public option, which wasn’t in Romney’s healthcare plan. That needed just one more vote to pass, but midterm voters decided to give it many fewer votes instead.

Also, literally a Democrat.

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.

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.

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.blogspot.com/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.

In the US, there’s very much a mood among the anti-MAGA crowd that an election can still fix things.

More to the point, if an election can’t fix things because the voters are still MAGA, the new government installed by the majority will be the same as the old.

Revolutions don’t make sense in a democracy, so until voting is stopped or the results of the vote are ignored (like if Trump had been successful on January 6), convincing voters to vote a particular way is the only surefire solution.

Unlike laws against making guns, this law applies to printer sellers, not to their users.

And is Melania’s patois really any less grating than Jar Jar’s?

And respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

How do you know that? To this point, they have only run the winner of the primary in the general election. In 2024, they ran the winner of the primary, but when he dropped out, they ran his running mate instead. What did you expect them to do?

If you want change to happen, you need to convince the voters. They control who the Democratic Party runs.

It looks like they aren’t ignoring you. They proposed a resolution, and they didn’t have the votes to get it passed. If you want change, vote for the ones who supported the resolution and primary the ones who didn’t while convincing voters to vote for the other candidate in the primary. Getting Trump elected just makes things worse. No Republicans are proposing these resolutions.

Because nonsense I know that throwing a punch won’t solve the problem, will gain sympathy for the attacked, and will put me in jail. Smart shit.

Maybe? No, we know the answer to that: definitely not.

There weren’t enough votes to do that yet, just like there weren’t enough votes to legalize gay marriage in 2008. In the reality we live in, California amended its constitution to ban gay marriage in 2008 by direct voter initiative. People who support gay marriage had to work to shift public attitudes while voting for the best option available, who said he didn’t support gay marriage (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustrated-same-sex-marriage-david-axelrod-book) but then directed the DOJ not to defend DOMA in order for it to fail court challenges. Similarly, people fighting for civil rights had to shift public attitudes while voting for the best option available.

In the reality we live in, 51% of Americans said their sympathies were with Israelis and 27% with Palestinians in 2024. In just the same way, people opposing genocide have to shift public attitudes while voting for the best option available.

Doing otherwise means genocide stops later, and more people watch their friends die, as evacuation orders now cover half of Beirut. You didn’t have to let Trump win and kill schoolchildren in Iran with a triple tap strike. That was your decision made from not understanding the consequences of your actions.

Biden told Netanyahu U.S. won’t support an Israeli counterattack on Iran https://www.axios.com/2024/04/14/biden-netanyahu-iran-israel-us-wont-support