9 ms·
Michigan 'digital age' bills pulled after privacy concerns raised
- groby_b 7mo agoHTTP 451 "We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time. For any issues, e-mail us at info@franklinnews.org or call us at (847) 497-5230." This is extremely funny given it's an article about privacy concerns :)
- embedding-shape 7mo agoI love seeing this, and love seeing regulations working exactly as wanted! What I see is basically "We're unable to serve this website without compromising your privacy, so instead of pretending or giving you a choice, we give you this message so you can turn around".
- ciupicri 7mo agoRight... as if can trust some random American or other non-European website that it really respects the law. What are you gonna do if it breaks the GDPR law? GDPR ruined the Internet.
- master-lincoln 7mo agoI'd argue greedy capitalists ruined it. They were also the cause of GDPR
- philipallstar 7mo agoThey also built it out.
- troad 7mo ago> "We're unable to serve this website without compromising your privacy... " More accurately, "we do not have the staff or funds to figure out what every single random law around the globe requires of us, and since foreign countries are not a realistic advertising market for a local Michigan newspaper, there's really no reason for us to try."
- embedding-shape 7mo agoWell, you don't have to do any of that stuff if you either are upfront about selling user data and ask if it's OK, or if you just don't do that stuff at all.
- troad 7mo agoEuropean law imposes a great deal more obligations on a business than that. This claim is simplistic to the point of disingenuousness.
- embedding-shape 7mo agoSince obviously there is no "European law" in the first place, I think it's pretty safe to assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
- Ylpertnodi 7mo agoInterpol would like a word.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago> Interpol would like a word. Also not a "European law" by any measure or understanding, that's a international organization that does police cooperation across the continent (and further), it isn't even a law enforcement agency... Not exactly sure how you could confuse that with laws, but here we are.
- 7mo ago
- ataru 7mo agoIt's illegal for us to steal from you, so we won't invite you inside.
- hypeatei 7mo agoWhat does GDPR get you that browser settings and an extension don't? I'm genuinely curious how random websites refusing to serve content / spamming cookie banners is a good thing? The data download and removal side of GDPR seems useful for more "entrenched" use cases where you have an account and a long history on a service but... fly-by website visits should not be this heavily regulated. Blocking cookies and scripts is trivial.
- colejohnson66 7mo agoI should not need extensions for a business to respect my privacy. It's as simple as that. If you look at it through an equity angle, needing extensions relegates the negative effects to those that are already not "well off" — the technologically illiterate who don't know what to do or know someone who does.
- hypeatei 7mo agoSo someone's refusal to make a couple clicks to install an extension necessitates: 1) millions of users having to click to get the annoying popup off their screen, 2) installing an extension to block those anyway, and 3) a more fractured internet where website operators outright refuse to serve content because of liability? I'd bet a very large sum of money that the technologically illiterate don't read anything on those popups and click "Accept all cookies"
- 3form 7mo agoHow does someone's refusal to install an extension necessitate millions of users having to close the popup? I guess you mean someone as in "vast majority of population"?
- Minor49er 7mo agoWhy is the government making efforts to increase technological literacy not an option?
- 7mo ago
- DeathArrow 7mo agoOr "we don't care about respecting stupid laws in your country. If you don't like being blocked, take the issue to your politicians."
- embedding-shape 7mo agoBut that's the thing, making them outright say "we don't care about respecting stupid laws in your country" (which for us means "we need to continue to be able to sell user data without notifying we do this") is not an "issue", that's the whole benefit of it in the first place. Anyways, it sounds like a win-win here, they get to not care, and we get to be rejected with clear reasons why, so again, benefits all around.
- plandis 7mo agoA US based non-profit news organization isn’t going to spend money to pay lawyers to ensure they meet a regulatory burden that doesn’t affect their core demographic.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- embedding-shape 7mo agoNeither are they gonna lose the potential of getting the data of any of their visitors, hence they're in this catch-22.
- wongarsu 7mo agoA burden that's proportional to how much user data you mine, process and/or share with third parties. Hence the irony
- Ylpertnodi 7mo ago> A US based non-profit news organization isn’t going to spend money to pay lawyers to ensure they meet a regulatory burden that doesn’t affect their core demographic. I like being covered by gdpr. Though I really cannot see any country's gdpr peops taking anyone in the US to court. A very simple "Fuck you" (along the lines of The Pirate Bay) would end any legal conversations. It would be different if the news organisation had an office in the EU. Anyway, i have a vpn, so....
- bombcar 7mo agoThe UK is not part of the US (yet?) nor the EU, but they're currently fining US companies - it doesn't surprise me at all that many take the easy answer of "ban them by IP".
- msla 7mo ago> The UK is not part of the US (yet?) nor the EU, but they're currently fining US companies Are they going after money they have in the UK or are they delusional enough to think they can successfully fine a company with no ties to the UK?
- DeathArrow 7mo agoI wonder why do they censor the content? It's not like the EU can enforce GDPR in US.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 7mo agoOf course. Suddenly we are concerned about privacy and the catch-all strikes again.
- whywhywhywhy 7mo agoThis all feels coordinated towards another goal.
- fooqux 7mo agoMaybe I'm just a cynical bastard, but after reading the article I can't help but agree. They saw the light way too easily and the sponsors didn't push back at all. That's how it's supposed to work, yeah, but it's a far cry from anything I've experienced in my entire lifetime. Something's up.
- al_borland 7mo ago> The right to opt out of its sale, and Why the right to opt-out, instead of requiring sale of data to be opt-in? I’m not sure how this stuff happens on the backend, but if I sign up for something and there is an opt-out page buried somewhere, I assume they’ve already sold my data by the time I can get to the opt-out page. I still make a best effort, but once it’s sold, it’s really too late. There needs to be an option to never sell it in the first place.
- noir_lord 7mo agoThis annoys me with Apple devices, iCloud and all it's related backups of..well everything are on by default and it doesn't ask at any point in the setup of the device. You have to then go into settings -> icloud and disable the main one and then like 30 individual ones. There should be a big toggle at the top that says "Disable All Cloud Backups" they can feel free to throw in a warning.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- al_borland 7mo agoThe phone backup is one toggle. The 30 individual ones are for syncing data for apps. If you aren’t using iCloud for any of this, why use it at all? I believe you can still use an iPhone without an iCloud account, can’t you? Without any cloud sync, I’m not sure what the value is, just sign out. I’m sure you’d lose the ability to download apps, but most of those are also using iCloud to sync data. For what it’s worth, Apple seems fairly decent about not opting users in to new stuff. When they released Messages syncing via iCloud, I had to explicitly turn it on for my various devices. The same was true for several other things.
- noir_lord 7mo ago> If you aren’t using iCloud for any of this, why use it at all? I believe you can still use an iPhone without an iCloud account, can’t you? Nope, You have to have an apple account tied to a physical phone number or you can't sign in on the device or use it at all and they opt you in to the 5GB free plan and yes, the 30 sliders is apps but that doesn't alter the fact that I want to be asked before they exfiltrate my data, technology should exist to serve the user and part of that (at least in my opinion) is respecting privacy. Yes you can sign out and you can untoggle the boxes but that is rather my point, it's opt out not opt in. I don't want default exfiltration of data from my devices to a faceless American corporation without that been my choice.
- jrm4 7mo agoFor the record, I think it's important to highlight this as "hey, the system actually works" sometimes. All the fatalism and whatnot with government.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- declan_roberts 7mo agoWhat's with the bipartisan push for these bills all of a sudden?
- lioeters 7mo agoIt's an international coordinated effort to undermine every single citizen's privacy, an agenda being pushed for years, again and again in every country and state, by a coalition including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., corporations that profit greatly from mandatory identity verification online. It's only a matter of time until they buy out enough politicians to push it through and force future generations to live under their panopticon. Same with digitization of money.
- kelseyfrog 7mo agoI hate privacy, even down to the idea itself. I will buy out politicians, and push relentlessly until every trace of privacy is eliminated from the world. I love being watched. The idea of a panopticon makes me feel amazing and I want to force it on everyone until the end of time.
- EvanAnderson 7mo agoI'm reading your comment as sarcasm, but I do have a non-sarcastic hot take on it. If we have to live in a panopticon I think access to the data should be available to everyone. That eliminates the power imbalance and/or makes the idea of the thing distasteful to powerful people who might actually try to restore privacy and eliminate the panopticon.
- hypercube33 7mo agoPower is then moved to whomever owns the most computer power and perhaps education
- EvanAnderson 7mo ago
- nickslaughter02 7mo agoPulled? > Bill sponsors Rep. Brad Paquette, R-Niles, and Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, are now working with advocacy groups on potential replacement legislation, according to the MFEI. https://archive.is/hI3wJ https://archive.is/hI3wJ
- nonethewiser 7mo agoIf it's illegal in the United States to ask someone's age before distributing porn to them online because of the first amendment, why can physical porn stores ask for id? Is that also unconstitutional?
- shafoshaf 7mo agoIt is not illegal to ask a user's age in the US online. Can you let us know what your source is?
- nonethewiser 7mo ago> It is not illegal to ask a user's age in the US online. Note that this is not what I said. You overgeneralized it - I will assume without bad intention. The question is if it's illegal to require porn companies to verify the age of their users. > Can you let us know what your source is? The Free Speech Coalition and Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson of the Supreme Court, to start. That was their minority opinion in the suit filed against Texas for requiring online porn companies to verify the age of users. The plaintiff argued it was a violation of the first amendment - it is a common argument. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on... The argument against the legality of these laws has always been highly suspect. There is a common sentiment that these laws are not good - but when pressed to explain why they aren't legal you get crazy arguments like this, that it violates the first amendment.
- xboxnolifes 7mo agoFwiw, you did not say the same thing here and in your first post. Your words are meaningfully different.
- nonethewiser 7mo agoYou should try to engage with the substance of the post. The claim made by some is that its illegal to require porn companies to do age verification due to the first amendment. It's really the only legal theory I've seen that supports the claim that the Texas law and others are unconstitutional. The rest just amounts to "it's bad so they should rule against Texas and others." If his comment was based on some different understanding lets state it so we can clarify, but I think I already have. Of course its not illegal to ask someone's age on the internet. Is that truly what you believed I was saying?
- pessimizer 7mo agoThis wasn't even a debate two years ago. People were still complaining about Secure Boot and needing Microsoft's permission to install Linux, and about locked phone bootloaders. The fact that this "need" has been manufactured was the victory. Michigan holding back for a moment doesn't matter when they already took California, and Europe is actively hostile to privacy - advocating for it there is starting to verge on the criminal. Now the claw is closing, and government and big tech are combining. We're either going to let this tiny inbred elite track, monitor and rule every portion of our lives, or we're not. There are no solutions through government, and there are no technical solutions. Right now you should be buying more computers than you need and datahoarding. It is disrespectful that they can pretend with a straight face that they've suddenly discovered privacy concerns. The people who pay them started by priming them with the best arguments and lines that their "media" guys could come up with to dismiss those concerns and to paint the people bringing them up as Chinese terrorist pedophiles. They probably just figured out that they need to wait after the midterms, eliminate a few people and get a few others in, then they could get it passed attached to something else. While they're consciously planning, we're simply reacting and ascribing to ignorance and incompetence what is far better explained by malice. The entire purpose of these laws is to destroy privacy. It isn't churches and puritans lobbying for them. There's no visible constituency lobbying for this, just a bunch of people who have been softened into going "well, if it helps..." People need to ask themselves who's getting this stuff done? There are so many things that 70-80% of the electorate are loudly clamoring for that can't even get acknowledged by anyone in power or in the mainstream media, but this stuff gets passed?