• MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Is your argument really “this won’t affect linux, so it doesn’t matter” ? At the very least, FOSS development by anyone in California will be a problem, as the law quite literally names “persons” as potentially liable.

    The reality remains, the US is the most thirsty for this kind of thing. Not the least.

    And they are already working on an even more overreaching version that will close loopholes in the current legalese.

    • Skavau@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Is your argument really “this won’t affect linux, so it doesn’t matter” ? At the very least, FOSS development by anyone in California will be a problem, as the law quite literally names “persons” as potentially liable.

      I’m taking the position that this is largely unenforceable at a software and OS level beyond larger players that come from California or specifically do a lot of trade in California.

      The reality remains, the US is the most thirsty for this kind of thing. Not the least.

      This specifically is quite different to most other efforts. Not sure if it might get constitutionally tested.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        So this is not a concern to you?

        The fact that there are people in leadership positions that want this, and have reasons why they want this, is below note. And not worth opposing?

        This will lead to infrastructure, that should not exist, existing.

        That it can be avoided is not a solution. It should not be built in the first place.

        • Skavau@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It is a concern, I just don’t know how it’s meaningfully enforceable at scale. Just like OSA. What do you want me to do about it personally?

          I never supported the idea.

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            I’d like you to realize that “the USA who is the least likely country to implement these laws” is literally the opposite of current reality.

            They are making some of the greatest efforts to make legally mandated user and age tracking a thing, as well as legally mandated user identity based content-gating.

            • Skavau@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              I’d like you to realize that “the USA who is the least likely country to implement these laws” is literally the opposite of current reality.

              In comparison to Europe/UK/AUS which is far further along this road (and implemented social media age requirements), absolutely. Also, apparently it’s just a checkbox as far as this particular California law goes.