12 ms·

In the case of Android, genuine means: The operating system was licensed by Google The app was downloaded from the Play Store (thus requiring a Google

In the case of Android, genuine means: The operating system was licensed by Google The app was downloaded from the Play Store (thus requiring a Google account) Device security checks have passed While there is value to verify device security, this strongly ties the app to many Google properties and services, because those checks won't pass on an aftermarket Android OS The issue is being raised here: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android-wallet-ui/issues/10 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android... I would like to strongly urge to abandon this plan. Requiring a dependency on American tech giants for age verification further deepens the EU's dependency on America and the USA's control over the internet. Especially in the current political climate I hope I do not have to explain how undesirable and dangerous that is. As a resident of the aforementioned political climate, I find their concerns to be reasonable. There are a number of comments in that same thread that indicate a mandate to utilize Google services may run afoul of EU member nations' integrity and privacy laws.

rightbyte 1y ago
> As a resident of the aforementioned political climate, I find their concerns to be reasonable. No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". Anyway, you mainly don't want the gov in your vicinity to snoop. Non-local OS:es is probably advantageous in that regard if you choose to run proprietary code...
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". We say this, but many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher. Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service. There's definitely a spectrum of benevolent and greedy dictators people draw lines on.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
    This is genuinely a real issue. It seems that most people cannot forsee an issue down the road unless it just happens to personally affect them after it took place ( ideally immediately after ). Valve is a good example, because while it is providing good value for the service it provides, it will not stay like that forever, but the environment it did set up will. And it will hurt once MBAs divvy up that kingdom. Just sayin' And obviously it is not just one arena, because it seems to be one glaring issue with human beings: they do not want to see the road ahead. And the ones they do are, at best, ignored.
  - dspillett 1y ago
    > many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less, and each launcher potentially adds it's own stream of notifications and adverts to their system so there is a cost to having multiple active even if the PC resource cost is practically undetectable. Furthermore if comparing game launches and related issues to political climates, I'd consider all the current closed source ones to be the same in those respects. Also we are not subject to several local political climates at any one time in that way (though we are when looking at a wider scale, of course). > Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service While there are other issues (each service tracking you etc.) this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. This doesn't really equate to trust on political climates (except where commercial greed is considered a political matter).
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      > this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company. People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services. One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.
      - dspillett 1y ago
        > That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas. > without advertising breaks Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that… > People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude. When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    Ye well I agree. I am guilty of using Steam to play some games on Linux with low effort. But as you note there is a spectrum.
  - Xelbair 1y ago
    the issue is that incentive structure is different from some of those that you've mentioned. Steam makes the most money if it bridges interests of consumers and publishers together - they don't profit by screwing over the customer(either publishers or end users). Is depending on them a problem? yes, but least likely one. preferably you could move your digital licenses to any provider you want. Meanwhile subscription services profit the most from enshittification, especially ones that offer 'free' access with ads, or different tiers. and this current issue isn't even about dependence on google - that's bad in itself - but about gigantic governmental overreach and step towards killing anonymity online under guise of protecting the children. It is even worse when you consider some EU countries already went after people when politicians got insulted online.
decremental 1y ago
From the telegraph.co.uk: "Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants" and there are people worried about the "political climate" in the US lmao
- dmix 1y ago
  The UK in the last 2 decades has been far more totalitarian than the US, even up to 2025. But the people in England seem to accept it and openly defend government encroachment even here on HN. While even smallest steps towards eroding rights in US have people there decry it, so it's far more controversial and newsworthy But it's nice so many people care about the last few places where hard freedoms exist. The biggest risk is missing the forest for the trees and not seeing the local extensions of short term political comprise.
userbinator 1y ago
"Device security checks" is the most horrifying aspect as it basically means "officially sanctioned hardware and software", and leads straight into the dystopia that Stallman warned us about in Right to Read. There is some amusing irony in the EU relying on the US for furthering its own authoritarianism. It's unfortunate that freedom (in the classic rebellious, American sense) never became that popular in the EU, or for that matter, the UK.
- nextos 1y ago
  > leads straight into the dystopia that Stallman warned us about IMHO, the push for age verification is just a stepping stone towards requiring a mandatory ID for all social media posts made from EU. Given the current trends against freedom of speech, it's not unreasonable to think that by the end of the decade any site, including HN, might need to link usernames with their respective eIDs in case posts come from EU IP addresses. > officially sanctioned hardware and software Right now, if you want to run an alternative OS, it's already an uphill battle to use tons of member state services, as well as to do banking. Even if you have microG available, the situation is terrible. I imagine it's going to become harder. I cannot understand why the European Commission wants to reduce our reliance on FAANG services, and at the same time they make Google Play a de facto standard, reinforcing the mobile duopoly. In this context, free alternative mobile platforms, such as Sailfish, cannot flourish.
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    "a mandatory ID for all social media posts made from EU. Given the current trends against freedom of speech" what?? how is this againt freedom of speech???, south korea implement this ages ago and there is nothing like that
    - userbinator 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_K... I wouldn't consider South Korea as having any meaningful freedom of speech; in fact they seem closer to China than the EU.
fsckboy 1y ago
>Especially in the current political climate I hope I do not have to explain how undesirable and dangerous that is. this is not the way to make a point that the other party will find persuasive.
- TechDebtDevin 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    (I wish non-Americans wouldn't spend all their time tripping over themselves to try to insult Americans. If you didn't feel so insecure about yourselves and resentful of the success of others, you wouldn't feel such a need to justify your existence.) In this case, however, it's your poor English to blame. In English when you talk to another person, that other person can be called the other party. It's not an attitude, it's a very neutral term.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- eru 1y ago
  What do you mean by 'the other party'? Many places have more than two parties.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    Yeah I'm glad I don't live in a two party state. The zero sum game politics that results in rips the country apart. You see this in the US and also in the UK (Brexit etc)
    - sunaookami 1y ago
ehnto 1y ago
You don't even need to consider politics to acknowledge this is dangerous, wildly irresponsible of a government to tie internet access to a foreign corporate entity's control. The privacy concerns of not being able to use a device free from Google services, may only be second to the sovereignty issues it introduces. Whoops, Google have delisted your government app from the Play Store, how quickly can you de-couple your citizens internet access from the corptocracy?
sidewndr46 1y ago
So remote attestation?
tonyhart7 1y ago
so what option is??? do you rely on third party store to do check??? I bet its more secure than google has verify it for you
agilob 1y ago
So we wouldn't be real EU citizens, unless Google says so? Can we get rid of passports then? /s
- tim333 1y ago
  I think Google login at the borders should be fine.
braiamp 1y ago
Someone opened an issue about changing the wording https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/issues/575 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-archi...
ElectroBuffoon 1y ago
Guardians of minors are responsible for what they view, as well as what they drink or breathe. So they should make sure their devices are configured properly, same way they make sure there is no alcohol or tobacco intake. Then we have systems like: PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_Selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_... POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R... ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocating_Child_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin... Proving we do not need a system prone to PII leaks, just collaboration between content providers and guardians, helped by OS & browser vendors. But it seems restricting minors is a side effect, at best, of the on going theatre.
Yokolos 1y ago
Why is it I can use my German national ID online without these Google requirements, but age verification suddenly requires dependency on Google?
Asooka 1y ago
> Especially in the current political climate I am forever thankful that Trump won the last election. If it were a Democrat party at the helm it would be practically impossible to have opposition to this, as most of the left would simply fall in line and cancel anyone daring to oppose the party. Look at how Obama strengthened the Patriot Act and carried out mass deportations with but a tiny grumble from the press.
- uncletammy 1y ago
  Here is a list of every state and federal bill proposed in the United States in recent history (that I could find). Have a look at the letter beside the names of the sponsors. Then, after you've discovered that online surveillance bills are almost entirely written by republicans, go read about how your president is bankrolling ICE and their purchase of US citizen's air travel data. Protecting Kids from Social Media Act (Tennessee HB 1891) Sponsors Representative William Lamberth (R‑TN) Requires: Social media platforms to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for under‑18 users; restricts retention of verification data; allows parental monitoring & time limits. Went into effect January 1, 2025. Utah Social Media Regulation Act (SB 152 & HB 311) Sponsors: Sen. Michael McKell (R) , Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R-District 44) Requires: Mandatory age verification for all users; parental consent and oversight for under‑18s; bans algorithmic targeting to minors; curfews; data‑privacy protections. (As of mid‑2025, enforcement blocked by litigation.) The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (Mississippi HB 1126) Sponsors: Walker Montgomery (R‑MS) Requires: Digital service platforms to verify age using "commercially reasonable" methods, obtain parental consent for users under 18, limit collection/use of minor’s data, moderate harmful content (self‑harm, grooming, etc.) Texas SCOPE Act (HB 18, “Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment”) Sponsors: Bryan Hughes (R-District 5) Requires: Platforms to verify the parent/guardian age if the account is for a minor; parental consent before collecting data for users under 18; content filtering for self‑harm, etc. Enforcement partially blocked by lawsuit. Kids Online Safety & Privacy Act (S. 2073 – pending) Sponsors: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) Requires: Commission study into age‑verification technologies; does not mandate verification itself Utah Social Media Regulation Act S.B. 152 Sponsors: Sen. Todd Weiler (R) Requires: Mandatory age verification, parental consent, time‑bed restrictions, limits on algorithmic recommendations; currently blocked in court Mississippi Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (HB 1126) Sponsors: Representative Walker Montgomery (R‑MS) Requires: Age verification for digital services, parental consent, limits on data collection and harmful content moderation Georgia Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act (SB 351 / Act 463) Sponsors: State Senator Brandon Beach (R) Requires: Platforms verify age of new users; under‑16 require parental consent; schools to ban social media access Virginia Amendment to VA Consumer Data Protection Act (SB 854) Sponsors: Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D) , Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) Requires: Requires age determination, parental consent for under‑16, limits usage to 1 hour/day unless overridden by parent, fines up to $7,500 per violation Louisiana HB 142 (and HB 570) Online Age Verification for Adult Content Sponsors: Representative Laurie Schlegel (R) Requires: Websites where ≥ 33% of content is adult must verify users are 18+ via IDs or transaction data; private causes of action allowed Ohio HB 96 (2025 law) Sponsors: Bryan Stewart (R-Ashville) Requires: Criminal penalties for commercial sites failing to verify adult content users Iowa SF 207 / HF 864 Sponsors: Kevin Alons (R-Disctrict 7) Texas SB 2420 (App-Store Age Verification) Sponsors: Angela Paxton (R) South Carolina HB 3405 Sponsors: Representative Brandon Guffey (R‑SC) prefiled Jan 2025 Proposed: Require app stores to verify age and obtain parental consent for minors; still pending Protecting Kids on Social Media Act (S. 1291 federal bill) Sponsored by: Senator Brian Schatz (D‑HI), Senators Tom Cotton (R‑AR), Chris Murphy (D‑CT), Katie Britt (R‑AL) Requires: Social media platforms to verify user ages, prohibit access to under‑13s, block algorithmic feeds to users under 18, require parental consent for minors App Store Accountability Act (H.R. 10364 / companion Senate bill) Sponsored by: Rep. John James (R‑MI‑10); Senate version by Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT) with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) Requires: App store operators verify ages and obtain parental consent before minors download apps or make in‑app purchases; federal preemption and FTC enforcement
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fuck_AI 1y ago
Europeans are completely domesticated and servile to America, this is to be expected. Germans even let them spy on their government!
W3zzy 1y ago
We don't even need this google layer. There already is a digital EU ID. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...

rightbyte 1y ago

> As a resident of the aforementioned political climate, I find their concerns to be reasonable. No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". Anyway, you mainly don't want the gov in your vicinity to snoop. Non-local OS:es is probably advantageous in that regard if you choose to run proprietary code...

johnnyanmac 1y ago
>No. The lesson is that stuff like this is concerning what ever the "political climate". We say this, but many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher. Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service. There's definitely a spectrum of benevolent and greedy dictators people draw lines on.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y ago
  This is genuinely a real issue. It seems that most people cannot forsee an issue down the road unless it just happens to personally affect them after it took place ( ideally immediately after ). Valve is a good example, because while it is providing good value for the service it provides, it will not stay like that forever, but the environment it did set up will. And it will hurt once MBAs divvy up that kingdom. Just sayin' And obviously it is not just one arena, because it seems to be one glaring issue with human beings: they do not want to see the road ahead. And the ones they do are, at best, ignored.
- dspillett 1y ago
  > many also want to entrust all our PC games to one closed source launcher I think that is far more that people like the other closed source launchers less, and each launcher potentially adds it's own stream of notifications and adverts to their system so there is a cost to having multiple active even if the PC resource cost is practically undetectable. Furthermore if comparing game launches and related issues to political climates, I'd consider all the current closed source ones to be the same in those respects. Also we are not subject to several local political climates at any one time in that way (though we are when looking at a wider scale, of course). > Or have videos/TV all on one subscription service While there are other issues (each service tracking you etc.) this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. This doesn't really equate to trust on political climates (except where commercial greed is considered a political matter).
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    > this is more due to the fact that each service charges what we used to pay (in fact more, as in some cases prices have gone up by more than general inflation) for a single service that provided the same amount of content that they cared about. That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Especially considering that before, there was a very limited supply of content restricted by time slots, and now you are buying far, far more on demand content without advertising breaks. And without contracts with a cable or satellite company. People are spoiled, and don’t appreciate how much easier and cheaper it is to watch or listen to most content than it was pre streaming services. One only needs to look at market cap graphs of the various media companies to see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is.
    - dspillett 1y ago
      > That is because the introductory prices were not 1 to 1 to the business’ existing revenue streams from cable and satellite transmission fees. Bad pricing descisions are a them problem, not a me problem. But it isn't just pricing of individual services that is the issue, it is the separation of content amonst many services which is the companies gauging out what they can with no care for how inconvenient it is for the audience, at least those who don't turn back to the high seas. > without advertising breaks Despite the increasing prices, and the need for multiple servies at those prices, the adverts are very much coming back. All the conveniences of streaming are being taken away and companies are surprised that we aren't happy paying for that… > People are spoiled […] see that streaming isn’t the cash cow people think it is If they are, then they were spoiled by the companies being deliberately misleading to get them hooked in the first place. My level of sympathy is limited by their level of honesty and “prey I don't change the deal further” attitude. When the question is “but how did you expect us to make good business under those conditions?”, a perfectly valid answer is “you very much lead us to believe that you could”.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  Ye well I agree. I am guilty of using Steam to play some games on Linux with low effort. But as you note there is a spectrum.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  the issue is that incentive structure is different from some of those that you've mentioned. Steam makes the most money if it bridges interests of consumers and publishers together - they don't profit by screwing over the customer(either publishers or end users). Is depending on them a problem? yes, but least likely one. preferably you could move your digital licenses to any provider you want. Meanwhile subscription services profit the most from enshittification, especially ones that offer 'free' access with ads, or different tiers. and this current issue isn't even about dependence on google - that's bad in itself - but about gigantic governmental overreach and step towards killing anonymity online under guise of protecting the children. It is even worse when you consider some EU countries already went after people when politicians got insulted online.

decremental 1y ago

From the telegraph.co.uk: "Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants" and there are people worried about the "political climate" in the US lmao

dmix 1y ago
The UK in the last 2 decades has been far more totalitarian than the US, even up to 2025. But the people in England seem to accept it and openly defend government encroachment even here on HN. While even smallest steps towards eroding rights in US have people there decry it, so it's far more controversial and newsworthy But it's nice so many people care about the last few places where hard freedoms exist. The biggest risk is missing the forest for the trees and not seeing the local extensions of short term political comprise.

userbinator 1y ago

"Device security checks" is the most horrifying aspect as it basically means "officially sanctioned hardware and software", and leads straight into the dystopia that Stallman warned us about in Right to Read. There is some amusing irony in the EU relying on the US for furthering its own authoritarianism. It's unfortunate that freedom (in the classic rebellious, American sense) never became that popular in the EU, or for that matter, the UK.

nextos 1y ago
> leads straight into the dystopia that Stallman warned us about IMHO, the push for age verification is just a stepping stone towards requiring a mandatory ID for all social media posts made from EU. Given the current trends against freedom of speech, it's not unreasonable to think that by the end of the decade any site, including HN, might need to link usernames with their respective eIDs in case posts come from EU IP addresses. > officially sanctioned hardware and software Right now, if you want to run an alternative OS, it's already an uphill battle to use tons of member state services, as well as to do banking. Even if you have microG available, the situation is terrible. I imagine it's going to become harder. I cannot understand why the European Commission wants to reduce our reliance on FAANG services, and at the same time they make Google Play a de facto standard, reinforcing the mobile duopoly. In this context, free alternative mobile platforms, such as Sailfish, cannot flourish.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  "a mandatory ID for all social media posts made from EU. Given the current trends against freedom of speech" what?? how is this againt freedom of speech???, south korea implement this ages ago and there is nothing like that
  - userbinator 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_South_K... I wouldn't consider South Korea as having any meaningful freedom of speech; in fact they seem closer to China than the EU.

fsckboy 1y ago

>Especially in the current political climate I hope I do not have to explain how undesirable and dangerous that is. this is not the way to make a point that the other party will find persuasive.

TechDebtDevin 1y ago
[flagged]
- fsckboy 1y ago
  (I wish non-Americans wouldn't spend all their time tripping over themselves to try to insult Americans. If you didn't feel so insecure about yourselves and resentful of the success of others, you wouldn't feel such a need to justify your existence.) In this case, however, it's your poor English to blame. In English when you talk to another person, that other person can be called the other party. It's not an attitude, it's a very neutral term.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
eru 1y ago
What do you mean by 'the other party'? Many places have more than two parties.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  Yeah I'm glad I don't live in a two party state. The zero sum game politics that results in rips the country apart. You see this in the US and also in the UK (Brexit etc)
  - sunaookami 1y ago

ehnto 1y ago

You don't even need to consider politics to acknowledge this is dangerous, wildly irresponsible of a government to tie internet access to a foreign corporate entity's control. The privacy concerns of not being able to use a device free from Google services, may only be second to the sovereignty issues it introduces. Whoops, Google have delisted your government app from the Play Store, how quickly can you de-couple your citizens internet access from the corptocracy?

sidewndr46 1y ago

So remote attestation?

tonyhart7 1y ago

so what option is??? do you rely on third party store to do check??? I bet its more secure than google has verify it for you

agilob 1y ago

So we wouldn't be real EU citizens, unless Google says so? Can we get rid of passports then? /s

tim333 1y ago
I think Google login at the borders should be fine.

braiamp 1y ago

Someone opened an issue about changing the wording https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/issues/575 https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-doc-archi...

ElectroBuffoon 1y ago

Guardians of minors are responsible for what they view, as well as what they drink or breathe. So they should make sure their devices are configured properly, same way they make sure there is no alcohol or tobacco intake. Then we have systems like: PICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_Selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_... POWDER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_Resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R... ASACP/RTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocating_Child_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Sites_Advocatin... Proving we do not need a system prone to PII leaks, just collaboration between content providers and guardians, helped by OS & browser vendors. But it seems restricting minors is a side effect, at best, of the on going theatre.

Yokolos 1y ago

Why is it I can use my German national ID online without these Google requirements, but age verification suddenly requires dependency on Google?

Asooka 1y ago

> Especially in the current political climate I am forever thankful that Trump won the last election. If it were a Democrat party at the helm it would be practically impossible to have opposition to this, as most of the left would simply fall in line and cancel anyone daring to oppose the party. Look at how Obama strengthened the Patriot Act and carried out mass deportations with but a tiny grumble from the press.

uncletammy 1y ago
Here is a list of every state and federal bill proposed in the United States in recent history (that I could find). Have a look at the letter beside the names of the sponsors. Then, after you've discovered that online surveillance bills are almost entirely written by republicans, go read about how your president is bankrolling ICE and their purchase of US citizen's air travel data. Protecting Kids from Social Media Act (Tennessee HB 1891) Sponsors Representative William Lamberth (R‑TN) Requires: Social media platforms to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent for under‑18 users; restricts retention of verification data; allows parental monitoring & time limits. Went into effect January 1, 2025. Utah Social Media Regulation Act (SB 152 & HB 311) Sponsors: Sen. Michael McKell (R) , Rep. Jordan Teuscher (R-District 44) Requires: Mandatory age verification for all users; parental consent and oversight for under‑18s; bans algorithmic targeting to minors; curfews; data‑privacy protections. (As of mid‑2025, enforcement blocked by litigation.) The Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (Mississippi HB 1126) Sponsors: Walker Montgomery (R‑MS) Requires: Digital service platforms to verify age using "commercially reasonable" methods, obtain parental consent for users under 18, limit collection/use of minor’s data, moderate harmful content (self‑harm, grooming, etc.) Texas SCOPE Act (HB 18, “Securing Children Online Through Parental Empowerment”) Sponsors: Bryan Hughes (R-District 5) Requires: Platforms to verify the parent/guardian age if the account is for a minor; parental consent before collecting data for users under 18; content filtering for self‑harm, etc. Enforcement partially blocked by lawsuit. Kids Online Safety & Privacy Act (S. 2073 – pending) Sponsors: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) Requires: Commission study into age‑verification technologies; does not mandate verification itself Utah Social Media Regulation Act S.B. 152 Sponsors: Sen. Todd Weiler (R) Requires: Mandatory age verification, parental consent, time‑bed restrictions, limits on algorithmic recommendations; currently blocked in court Mississippi Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act (HB 1126) Sponsors: Representative Walker Montgomery (R‑MS) Requires: Age verification for digital services, parental consent, limits on data collection and harmful content moderation Georgia Protecting Georgia’s Children on Social Media Act (SB 351 / Act 463) Sponsors: State Senator Brandon Beach (R) Requires: Platforms verify age of new users; under‑16 require parental consent; schools to ban social media access Virginia Amendment to VA Consumer Data Protection Act (SB 854) Sponsors: Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D) , Sen. Lashrecse Aird (D) Requires: Requires age determination, parental consent for under‑16, limits usage to 1 hour/day unless overridden by parent, fines up to $7,500 per violation Louisiana HB 142 (and HB 570) Online Age Verification for Adult Content Sponsors: Representative Laurie Schlegel (R) Requires: Websites where ≥ 33% of content is adult must verify users are 18+ via IDs or transaction data; private causes of action allowed Ohio HB 96 (2025 law) Sponsors: Bryan Stewart (R-Ashville) Requires: Criminal penalties for commercial sites failing to verify adult content users Iowa SF 207 / HF 864 Sponsors: Kevin Alons (R-Disctrict 7) Texas SB 2420 (App-Store Age Verification) Sponsors: Angela Paxton (R) South Carolina HB 3405 Sponsors: Representative Brandon Guffey (R‑SC) prefiled Jan 2025 Proposed: Require app stores to verify age and obtain parental consent for minors; still pending Protecting Kids on Social Media Act (S. 1291 federal bill) Sponsored by: Senator Brian Schatz (D‑HI), Senators Tom Cotton (R‑AR), Chris Murphy (D‑CT), Katie Britt (R‑AL) Requires: Social media platforms to verify user ages, prohibit access to under‑13s, block algorithmic feeds to users under 18, require parental consent for minors App Store Accountability Act (H.R. 10364 / companion Senate bill) Sponsored by: Rep. John James (R‑MI‑10); Senate version by Sen. Mike Lee (R‑UT) with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) Requires: App store operators verify ages and obtain parental consent before minors download apps or make in‑app purchases; federal preemption and FTC enforcement

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

fuck_AI 1y ago

Europeans are completely domesticated and servile to America, this is to be expected. Germans even let them spy on their government!

W3zzy 1y ago

We don't even need this google layer. There already is a digital EU ID. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-...