1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy
0.19.16
0
Followers
0
Following
Joined March 18, 2026
Posts
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
You really underestimate the trouble meta and YouTube are in. The specific rulings were barely tickets to them, but if they are upheld then follows flood gates of identical lawsuits are going to be opened up. They had millions and millions of child users in the 2010s that they knowingly served an addictive product to. If the current ruling is upheld, then there will likely be a very large class action settlement to payoff all the past injured users. But instead of changing their product going forward they want to get rid of the responsibility for their product entirely.
Stop making up fake conspiracies and be mad about that.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
I don't agree that Epstein is much of a counter point. There were lots of people taking about him, it really wasn't that closely held of a secret, and he was arrested and prosecuted and murdered for it. Ultimately, with the files released, there really isn't much in them that we didn't already know.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Just to clear something up, my brand new account is only new because lemmings.world is closing and I had to migrate to a new server.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
The biggest problem with conspiracy theories like this is always the number of people involved keeping their mouths shut. Anyone that has ever managed a large project knows how impossible it is to keep a large group of people quiet about something. In real life, there are conspiracies. Often very large ones. But they didn't stay secret for long.
What is easier to believe: (1) that all these people involved, across countries with leaders of many different political varieties, all agreed to stick to a single narrative in order to cover up a deep international conspiracy to build a massive international database of people's ages online, OR (2) Meta and other orgs are doing a normal business thing and trying to reduce their liability costs.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
5
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
"There’s no mechanism that the government currently has that can track you as effectively as these age verification laws can."
I honestly can't tell if you were serious or not.
The governments just buy your data from Google. Do you have any idea how much information on you Google has?
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
2
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
I didn't know about that. Maybe that's plays into it too. But I'm generally a "simpler answer is more likely the most correct" type of guy.
In this case the simple answer is that Meta and others just had their "Tobacco Lawsuits" moment in court and liability floodgates are any to open wide, and they are pushing these laws to divert their liability onto someone else.
View full thread on lemmy.today
4
1
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Google "Protected Processor Identification Number (PPIN)" to learn more.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
1
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
It's so funny to me how badly people want this to be some nefarious governmental conspiracy. Listen, the government already has much better tools to track you online. Your computer has, on a hardware level, sent unique identifiers to ISPs and websites since Pentium IIIs. This age requirement thing isn't a government conspiracy to track you, they already track you.
It is a *corporate *conspiracy. It's Meta and other major websites, games, and applications companies that want to off load their liability. Meta and Alphabet just lost major lawsuits for their negligence in protecting kids on their own websites. There is a liability dam about to break for these companies and schools and other advocacy groups start their own lawsuits. That's what this is about. That's the real conspiracy.
View full thread on lemmy.today
34
21
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
The biggest difference is that the state is still controlled by the federal government. If it wasn't subservient to the US Federal government then a lot of things about it would have to change.
It would be a completely different place. I imagine it would closely resemble a Christian version of Turkey in a lot of ways.
View full thread on lemmy.today
8
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
"They" are not.
It's just one dude and that's not going anywhere. It would require agreement of not only New Mexico (which is a non starter) and the federal government, which is equally not going to happen.
View full thread on lemmy.today
12
2
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
If Texas became it's own nation, it would probably become a cross between Russia and Switzerland. It would quickly develop a highly centralized oligarchy, basically operating off of oil and gas exports, while still having good relationships with it's larger neighbors and have beneficial tax policies.
It would become a great safe place for super rich people to hide money while it's actual population declines economically.
View full thread on lemmy.today
51
15
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Exactly, if this really all ended now then we all practically got off easy. (Including the Iranian people compared to how bad it could get.)
View full thread on lemmy.today
2
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Honestly, of all the bad possible outcomes of this war. Losing this way is the least bad.
View full thread on lemmy.today
6
6
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Correct. Right now the OS maker is not responsible. That exactly why Meta is pushing so hard to change the laws to make them responsible.
Your analogy is a good analogy. In your car analogy, today, no one blames the car manufacturer for a drunk driver, but we do blame bars and bar tenders. In many states, bars have to be licensed and if the bar tender allows some one to get drunk and drive home the bar and the bar tender can be held liable. This situation would be like if bars got together to lobby state and national governments to make it so that the car manufacturers had to install breathalyzers in every car so that the bars could reduce their liability and responsibility.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Right, I was making the point that just like the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church can’t just shrug off their responsibility, online orgs don’t get a free pass either.
But if these laws are passed, then they will get a free pass, and just point at the OS maker as the problem. Be mad about that and I’m on your side.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Okay, for your ignorance, parents bare some responsibility but not all the responsibility.
Just like the parents didn’t bare all the responsibility with the Catholic Church abuses or the Boy Scout abuses, they also don’t bare all the responsibility for the online abuses. The providers of the service also share in that responsibility.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
1
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
Do you also believe that the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church also have no responsibility to protect kids, because doing to would similarly require collecting data on people?
(I would disagree with you if you said yes, but I’ll respect your position for being consistent.)
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
… And if a kid using that browser was abused because the browser lied to the website about the users’ age, then the browser’s creators should bare some consequences for lying to the website that otherwise would have put up protections. Right?
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
2
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
I don’t understand. There will still be porn sites for people.
The way it will work is that when you tell your browser to go to a porn site, the site will ask your Bowser for your verified age. Your browser will then ask your OS for your verified age. Your OS will respond “18+” to your browser. Your browser will tell the porn site “the OS says 18+”. Then the porn site will say “Cool, here’s the porn.” That’s it.
If you use a non-compliant OS, then your browser will say to the porn site “I asked the OS and the OS says ‘null’.” Then the porn site will say, “Well sorry. Then your OS isn’t supported. Come back when you are using a supported OS.”
That’s it.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
4
0
0
Open post
In reply to
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with. That’s generally what I said. If you use a non-compliant OS, your experience will be “age-gated”.
Though I don’t think they will completely block access entirely. Collecting data on kids is extremely valuable to these companies, because kids grow up to be consumers. They will happily continue to let you in, but you won’t be able to go to the 18+ areas.
View full thread on lemmy.today
0
0
0
0
Open post
1dalm
@1dalm@lemmy.today
lemmy.today
What is really likely to happen to you if you use an OS that doesn't comply with age verification laws.
Okay you are ready to take a stand for freedom!
You are going to use an OS that isn’t going to bend the knee and comply with age verification laws. I solute you, comrade!
Here are the likely consequences of your choice:
The Feds aren’t coming after you. You aren’t going to be out on a watch list.
What will likely happen is that if you try to log into your Facebook account you will get a message that says “Your Operating System is not currently supported. Your user experience will be limited to Groups labeled “Everyone”.”
That’s basically it. Your personal user experience will be limited to “kid friendly” areas of the Internet. (Same with apps and games.)
That’s the real driver of these laws. Facebook and other app producers know that the days where they can just shrug off child predators using their products is coming to and end. Regardless of your opinion on age verification is as a solution, child predators are a real world problem and it’s not just the parents fault. The platforms have some responsibility too.
Which is exactly what Facebook and the others specifically don’t want -responsibility for their own platforms. That’s why they are pushing for these laws that off load their responsibility onto the OS makers. Then they can just say “Oh, we don’t have any responsibility for this child being abused in our platform. We asked the OS what the user’s age was and the OS reported 18+. What else could we have done?”
So, that’s the consequence if you choose to use an OS that refuses to comply. You’ll just be relegated to the kid friendly version of website, games, and applications.
(On the other hand, if your OS chooses to falsely report to a website or an app an age for a child that is abused, then the OS should also be held responsible. But at that point you can go ahead and blame the parents too for letting their child use an OS that isn’t safe for them to use.)
View on lemmy.today
0
88
1
0