10 ms·
Arizona Bill Requires Age Verification for All Apps
- mothballed 8mo agoYou don't need an ID of any sort to conceal carry a gun in AZ, but you need one for an app?
- ranger_danger 8mo agoOnly if the bill is voted on, approved and signed into law, which I would bet top dollar will never happen.
- paxys 8mo agoThe 2nd amendment is the only constitutionally-guaranteed right these days. And that too only if you have the correct political views.
- malfist 8mo agoSee Pretti
- mothballed 8mo ago[flagged]
- wasabi991011 8mo agoHe was right to be acquitted, the cops were doing drive by shootings from unmarked vans (using non-lethal bullets but hard to tell when being shot at in the night).
- pluralmonad 8mo agoThere is no such thing as "non-lethal" bullets. A bean bag round can kill you. The riot control paraphernalia is less-lethal than traditional firearms.
- mothballed 8mo agoHe was acquitted in Minnesota under a very similar fact-pattern of what was happening in Minneapolis during the ICE fiasco: masked men in unmarked cars, often using unlawful force, essentially undifferentiated from thugs, going off and shooting people like goode. That is what I'm trying to get people to understand.
- anonymous908213 8mo ago> when a guy with an AK lit up on cops during the BLM riots. It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van". Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told investigators, as well as the tales police and prosecutors offered up to the media. Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! Fuck ’em up, gas ’em, fuck ’em up.” At 17th Avenue and Lake Street, around 10 p.m., the SWAT team saw a group of people outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station. Bittell told the driver to head toward the station and said, “Let ’em have it boys!” They later learned they were shooting at the gas station owner, neighbors and relatives guarding the station from more looting, as well as bystanders, including a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was yelling, “Press!” About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot. They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. [...] Stallings, an Army veteran, returned fire with his mini Draco pistol, for which he had a permit. Actually, rather than framing, I would say that you are outright lying, to be honest. --- > Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that. This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
- uncletscollie 8mo ago[dead]
- thinkingtoilet 8mo agoCan children buy guns in AZ? Look, I don't have an opinion here one way or the other, this almost certainly won't pass, but please at least try to argue in good faith.
- mothballed 8mo agoAdults can buy a gun with no ID, no problem in AZ, fully legal. If you prefer that comparison, to an adult being carded to buy an app. I do feel I was making a good faith comment here. --------- re: below due to throttling --------------- >Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps. -------------------------------------- >Is it legal to sell a gun to a child in Arizona? Or do you responsible for age verification? You continue to argue in bad faith. It is legal to sell a gun to an adult in AZ without carding them and without doing "age verification" as described in the article. In comparison, this bill appears to make it illegal to sell an app to an adult without doing "age verification" as they've described. My comparison here is in good faith. ------------------------------------ >How do they pass the federal background check? Easy, meet in parking lot, pay cash, buy gun, no background check needed and fully legal.
- 15155 8mo agoAdults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew. If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.
- mothballed 8mo agoYes private sales have no background check, obviously I was referring to the "correct" case since that is part of "all" sales and the headline here is "all" apps. Why would I be referring to the incorrect case? If you want to force a condition in which I'm wrong, in bad faith, then I can play that fuck fuck game with you too. I can walk into a "regulated" store and buy a perfectly functional and accurate 1889 Schmidt–Rubin bolt action cartridge rifle with absolutely no background check no ID -- so *ha ha ha you are incorrect!*.
- herf 8mo agoThe days you move between categories can establish your birthdate, which is a lot of bits if you are doing this on an individual level (basically it's a great start at a supercookie).
- _79px 8mo ago[flagged]
- advisedwang 8mo agoIn my ideal world a law would: 1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories. 2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist 3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories 4. Require websites to respect that header. No need for age verification, no need for the government to decide what is/isn't allowed and for free you allow gamblers to prevent gambling content being shown to them etc. --- This AZ law is frustrating because by targeting the app store it's actually taking a step towards my vision... but in a way that multiplies the harm of age verification instead of diminishing it.
- varispeed 8mo agoBut how corrupt politicians will make money having such reasonable policies?
- autoexec 8mo agoThe goal of these laws isn't to protect children, they just want to further surveillance and control of the population. While there are better ways to handle the "think of the children" concerns being invoked to justify these kinds of laws none of them would satisfy the legislators pushing them.
- munk-a 8mo agoThe problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry. It's like how most mobile distros don't allow you to control relative app volume - if it might hurt ad bucks it can't be allowed.
- advisedwang 8mo agoGood point. I originally thought this would just be content categories. Maybe that's all that's plausible.
- drakythe 8mo ago
- nephihaha 8mo agoWho do they think they are? The UK?
- Glyptodon 8mo agoOne thing to keep in mind is that every session has crazy proposals in AZ. (Not clear how many of them get anywhere.)
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- autoexec 8mo agoIt's good to take note of who exactly is pushing (and/or being bribed to push) the crazy. In the case of this monstrosity you can thank: Rep. Michael Way [R] Rep. Leo Biasiucci [R] Rep. Selina Bliss [R] Rep. Michael Carbone [R] Rep. Neal Carter [R] Rep. Lupe Diaz [R] Rep. Lisa Fink [R] Rep. Matt Gress [R] Rep. Chris Lopez [R] Rep. David Marshall [R] Rep. Quang Nguyen [R] Rep. James Taylor [R]
- t1234s 8mo agoThis is a bait-and-switch that will be used to roll in an internet ID for all people. I believe this is why M$ is trying to force people to log in to their local machines with a microsoft account.
- JohnMakin 8mo agoI have been terminally online since the age of 7 and this would probably make me shut everything down and go outside. Maybe that'd be good for society, but I suspect most people will just shrug and go along with it.
- hydrogen7800 8mo ago"It can't be that bad if everyone else is also doing it." I'm not sure how principled I would be if/when it comes to that. I hope I will be.
- JohnMakin 8mo agoConceptually it’s difficult to explain to most people why this would not benefit them. Like, I don’t maintain the delusion that I can’t be precisely identified by the apps I use. I just am vehemently opposed to it being tied to my government issued identity, which could be arbitrarily revoked and controlled by people who dont have pure profit as their motive. A lot of people probably find that overly paranoid.
- zamadatix 8mo agoI'm much more convinced Microsoft wants to do stuff like sell cloud subscriptions at the click of a button in the desktop than Microsoft gives a crap about those subscriptions being tied to a consistent account ID. The latter certainly sounds evil, but not in a way that particularly helps Microsoft over their competitors. Uncle Bob probably would probably need to do a decent amount of work to figure out how to purchase a OneDrive subscription from having no account, particularly if they think "I've already got an account - that's how I log in!". If the PC forces Bob to walk through creating a cloud Microsoft account before he even sees the desktop then the only step remaining is to click to OneDrive (or whatever) sales notification and enter a credit card so his "important personal files stay backed up" (or however they pitch the service in the notifications).
- tabs_or_spaces 8mo agoWhat would be interesting to know is which age verification services are popular these days?
- gigel82 8mo agoIt's clear these "age verification" bills will just keep coming and it's a losing battle to try and oppose each individually. Instead (or rather in addition to) activism we should go at it from the other end and request the introduction of a verifiably independent authority and zero knowledge protocol that will deliver a cryptographically secure boolean bit (isOver18) with no way to correlate from either end the ID or which website the bit is used for. The alternative is IDs get collected by all these horrendous privacy fiends and sold / leaked / monetized across the board, which sounds like a dystopian nightmare.
- iamnothere 8mo agoI would propose a variant of RFC 3514, where adult-related packets have a specified bit in the IP header. Simpler and you can filter it at the firewall.
- chneu 8mo agoYour 2nd paragraph is a foreign language to US representatives. A bunch of senators, like Graham and Turtle Man, brag about not using email.
- spicyjpeg 8mo agoSolutions based on zero-knowledge-proofs would solve the privacy aspect at the massive cost of killing general purpose computing as we know it today, by mandating the use of remote device attestation (as that is the only way to guarantee an otherwise fully anonymous token is not being sniffed and passed onto someone else). That would be in my opinion significantly more dystopian than every service having a copy of my ID, as it would lay the groundwork for corporations and governments to be able to dictate what you can and cannot do exactly with any internet-connected device. It's not hard for instance to imagine that once every computing device available to the general public is locked down and cannot be jailbroken without also losing the ability to log into any online service, a law would be introduced requiring client-side scanning of all files to check for CSAM, evidence of political dissent or even just plain old movie piracy. The technology to implement this exists (see what Apple tried to do a few years ago) and the exact same legislation is currently being pushed in the 3D printing space, so these fears are not unfounded.
- agentifysh 8mo agoCurious, what is driving this "you need permission to use the internet" bills suddenly ? Really miss the old internet.
- giraffe_lady 8mo agoIt's right wing censorship plain and simple. Unfashionable to state this.
- iamnothere 8mo agoWhile this particular bill is all R sponsors, current censorship efforts are bipartisan inside the US and even international in scope. The one ray of hope is that left and right can’t agree on what should be censored or how, or even what constitutes “censorship.”
- rootusrootus 8mo agoIMO when both-sides-ing a debate, it would be helpful to provide more specific examples to support the claim. Especially when your first few words acknowledge the apparent one-sided nature.
- uncletscollie 8mo ago[dead]
- chneu 8mo agoJust look at the Senate votes for these bills/laws.
- iamnothere 8mo agoIf you need examples for left wing censorship in the US: the federal government (primarily through CISA) worked for years through NGOs to pressure companies on moderation policy, going so far as to suggest particular accounts or individuals needed scrutiny. California is currently suing several website operators for offering blueprints for 3D printed guns. A few blue states are experimenting with hate speech bills again (typically focused on islamophobia or antisemitism), although they will likely face a successful 1A challenge if they pass. Both Ds and Rs have been attacking Section 230; Mark Kelly wants to strip those protections when sites “amplify content that caused harm.” KOSA is a looming bipartisan threat. Left radicals are as virulently against free speech as those on the right, often calling for allies to “shut down” or even physically harm opponents. Schools are a particularly difficult battleground for free speech, with actions against scholars from both left and right: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire If you are left wing, you probably don’t think some of these are censorship, others do, that’s why I said it was a good thing that left and right disagree with each other here. In many ways they cancel each other out, although they do a lot of damage to free speech along the way. It’s also true that currently in the US the primary threat comes from the right, as a consequence of the right being in power. Internationally it is reversed.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo agoRemember when children weren't even supposed to use the internet unsupervised? What happened? The internet hasn't gotten any less filthy.
- mghackerlady 8mo agoShareholders happened and decided there was money in it, and now the government is using their failures and the irresponsibility of parents for mass surveillance
- Fervicus 8mo agoAll of a sudden various governments and tech companies want to do age verification. Co-incidence?
- ninininino 8mo agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_... for a full picture of US states age verification laws, states in the article include: Arkansas California Florida Georgia Louisiana Mississippi Nebraska New York Ohio Tennessee Texas Utah
- rootusrootus 8mo agoCalifornia seems like the odd one out on that list. And maybe NY.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- adamtaylor_13 8mo agoSerious question: why can't Meta, Google, and friends just decide not to serve Arizona? I get logistically it would be tough, but if they built that capability, they would have a very robust lever to pull anytime a government pulls this schtick. I would imagine the backlash from the people would fix this pretty quickly. This seems like one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situations. I'd fully support big tech saying, "Alright Arizona. Build your own technical infrastructure." And letting the fools in government who don't understand how the world works figure it out the hard way. What am I missing? (beyond perhaps being overly optimistic!)
- hsbauauvhabzb 8mo agoWhy would big tech care? Age gating is probably good for them, and they won’t want the market share loss. A total pull out is what big tech threatens when government is impacting on their profit margins, not working in their favour.
- iamnothere 8mo agoExactly, this will just lead to regulatory capture, where only the big platforms thrive and they are periodically “nudged” to push government supported viewpoints, like what happened to TikTok.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- devsda 8mo agoNot a good idea to enourage that sort of behavior though, because the same tools can embolden them and can be used to pull out of say California if it pushes for a strong pro consumer legislations. Corporations don’t act on the moral principles regardless of what their PR/marketing department says. It is ultimately decided on how laws affect their bottomline.
- deltoidmaximus 8mo agoThey wouldn't pull out of California. It's 1/5 of the US economy and would leave a gaping opening for a competitor to gain a stronger foothold there. You're right it's about money not principles but that's exactly why the threat would be empty. They'd probably lobby congress to try and make it illegal for the states to enact the protection and do some performative annoyances instead. They might try to make an example out of a smaller state, but since they aren't selling food or fuel or heart pills it isn't like the state is going to collapse without access to Meta properties.
- Bender 8mo agoCould the unwritten motivation be to kill some of the internet and boost sales at local brick and mortar stores? trying to think like a state government critter... Privacy risks aside, people are averse to added friction.
- itronitron 8mo agoThey should just require people to answer a dynamic set of random history questions.
- ASUfool 8mo agoSince I'm in AZ, I had to look about the sponsor. Here's what Michael Way has on his campaign website : "Michael is NOT a politician. He has spent his career in business, not government. We need bold, conservative outsiders to shake up business-as-usual." https://michaelwayforaz.com/about/ https://michaelwayforaz.com/about/ The bill sure sounds contradictory to his campaign statement.
- seany 8mo agoThis whole pile of bullshit is just to end anonymity. Decentralizing things, including finances seems like the only real path forward to keep the world sane.
- gzread 8mo agoReclaim the Net is not really a reliable source
- sidewndr46 8mo agoIt'll certainly be interesting to see how age verification works for Notepad