I agree with you on wifi networks - Internet connections should be dumb pipes. I don't know what you mean by "blanket ban per state" - the per-state bans in the

I agree with you on wifi networks - Internet connections should be dumb pipes. I don't know what you mean by "blanket ban per state" - the per-state bans in the article are still talking about state owned devices. > I am not sure why you believe the kind of security violation is shoehorning in an unnecessary concern I am talking about privacy, and the need for general privacy legislation. Your response brushed that aside in favor of talking about "security violations", seemingly asserting that the only metric for analyzing privacy-hostile actions is whether they violate existing laws like the CFAA. > difference between someone sharing their interest in Harry Potter and the DMV selling your information The two dynamics are overwhelmingly similar: You have "voluntarily" chosen to give your data to TikTok, and to the DMV. You wouldn't have chosen to give your information to either of them in isolation, but you were pushed into doing so as a condition of partaking in some other activity. At any time, you can choose to stop giving new information to either. However they both can continue using information you have already given them, and at any time both can come up with new ways of abusing your information and unilaterally alter the deal you originally signed up for. Asserting a strong difference between the two is ultimately just buying into partisan propaganda that blesses the actions of government xor corporations. From where I'm standing, they're both mostly-unaccountable bureaucratic power structures that exercise coercive power. There are indeed differences, but on this issue not enough to be meaningful - large well-established surveillance companies have much more in common with government than they do with small businesses and individuals (which are at the opposite end of the spectrum). > I don't think most people realize how dangerous it would be to attack section 230 as a way to implement Europe style privacy laws. It's literally yet another attack on privacy There is a lot to unpack here. I do not see how an "EU style" privacy law can be considered an attack on privacy, apart from some weird framing where corporations should have the right to privately strip individuals of our privacy. I'm no fan of EARN IT, and I think focusing on S230 is fallacious (the only interesting question there is the hypothetical of whether the lack of S230 would have prevented the surveillance industry from growing up like it did - perhaps with increased liability, the tech industry would have continued producing honest user-representing software rather than switching business models to being centralized media sites. But that ship has sailed long ago). Rather, I am advocating for privacy laws on their own. A free society is not one comprised of numerous unaccountable surveillance databases. And to the extent that I do consent for a business to process my information in the course of providing a service, this should not give them the right to retain it indefinitely nor abuse it for their own purposes.