At least until someone tells Trump that means his little social network can be held accountable for everything those nazi humpers on it say.
Who's trying to break the internet today?
- Thread starter NovaSaber
- Start date
He'll just cash out and let it burn. He got what he wanted out of it.
It's odd that you would say that, after admitting multiple times that we're already living in a dictatorship.
there is an amazing level of difference between criminal accountability, which he needs to be held to, and civil liability which is what i was talking about here.
More to the point, it was a hyperbolic statement showing the absurdity of removing this particular rule especially as it can have such potential damage to the Melon Felon.
It passed and was signed this time, as of yesterday. KOSA is back on the docket federally, too.
On the other hand, all those annoying cookie warning popups may be going away:
EU ruling: tracking-based advertising by Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X, across Europe has no legal basis
Landmark court decision against “TCF” consent pop ups on 80% of the internet
www.iccl.ie
Sure did. 'cause why expect parents to teach and monitor their kids when we can
So ProtonMail and similar services in Switzerland may be looking for new homes soon, assuming they don't just close:
tuta.com
Switzerland plans surveillance worse than US | Tuta
Revision of Swiss surveillance law VÜPF would directly target VPN & encrypted chat and email providers based in Switzerland.
tuta.com
Another bill to watch besides KOSA:
www.newsweek.com
We'll see if it makes it out of committee. Nice summary here:
action.freespeechcoalition.com
New bill could ban pornography across US
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act would modernize the process by which courts recognize explicit content online.
www.newsweek.com
Interstate Obscenity Definition Act of 2025 – Action Center
action.freespeechcoalition.com
Again, what does anyone shilling this stuff actually hope to get out of it? What benefit could eradicating "adult material" actually have? What good does censoring the most random stuff on the internet get anyone? So far all I can come up with is it's "infinite money for me forever" (somehow) and/or "we control the horizontal and the vertical, we own you now". It's practically cartoon villainy at this point.
(Yes, slightly rhetorical. I know the actual answer is "destroy anyone that disagrees with me and my views".)
No politician that's loud about "protect the children" actually gives a damn about real children. It's just the best lever they have to make anyone opposing them look bad. (Hint: if you actually cared about real kids, politicos, you wouldn't be using your other hand to gut health care, education, and social services.)
And of course anyone spouting this BS won't be affected by it, remember consequences are for normals...
(Yes, slightly rhetorical. I know the actual answer is "destroy anyone that disagrees with me and my views".)
No politician that's loud about "protect the children" actually gives a damn about real children. It's just the best lever they have to make anyone opposing them look bad. (Hint: if you actually cared about real kids, politicos, you wouldn't be using your other hand to gut health care, education, and social services.)
And of course anyone spouting this BS won't be affected by it, remember consequences are for normals...
Their goal is to get anyone and anything not-straight labeled as "adult material."
The ultimate goal is to make it illegal for LGBTQ+ people to exist.
Hence the rhetorical, yes. And my reactions to this crap still make me feel stupid, because I keep trying to apply logic to their bigotry (which is impossible).
And to dictate standards for female dress and force them back to the 50s and earlier.
But, yes, mostly to declare all LGBTQ+ people as illegal
Just saw this is apparently a thing again:
fightchatcontrol.eu
Fight Chat Control - Protect Digital Privacy in the EU
Learn about the EU Chat Control proposal and contact your representatives to protect digital privacy and encryption.
YouTube to begin testing a new AI-powered age verification system in the U.S.
YouTube is ready to start testing a new age-verification system in the U.S. using artificial intelligence to distinguish between adults and minors based on their viewing habits.
apnews.com
This starts going into effect today.
So far today, the Tube of You doesn't seem any more broken for me than it has been for some time. But we'll see.
YouTube to begin testing a new AI-powered age verification system in the U.S.
YouTube is ready to start testing a new age-verification system in the U.S. using artificial intelligence to distinguish between adults and minors based on their viewing habits.
This starts going into effect today.
There's an attempt a boycott of YouTube today, so I'm not checking to see how much it sucks until at least tomorrow.
Though, my YouTube account's so old it should accept that as proof I'm over 18, unless the part that takes account duration into account doesn't work.
So I won't be seeing the worst of it (until they drop the "protect the kids" excuse and admit they just want to collect people's personal information); it's newer users who are really getting burdened.
Though, my YouTube account's so old it should accept that as proof I'm over 18, unless the part that takes account duration into account doesn't work.
So I won't be seeing the worst of it (until they drop the "protect the kids" excuse and admit they just want to collect people's personal information); it's newer users who are really getting burdened.
Bold of you to assume it'd work in the first place.
Again, I just...ugh. I won't asky why, the answer is to steal and sell your information, but if they're pretending to play the 'protect kids' card then maybe they should look into fixing up Youtube Kids first?
They don't have to pretend very convincingly because the only people they're trying to appease are just pretending too.
People who actually care about protecting kids online either don't exist or aren't a significant lobby. The state of the internet for the past 30 years should be proof enough of that.
People who actually care about protecting kids online either don't exist or aren't a significant lobby. The state of the internet for the past 30 years should be proof enough of that.