> any possible excuse to suggest tech companies shouldn't be accountable
The entire impetus for these bills is for Facebook (the sponsor of these bills) to escape liability for how they're currently harming kids. Facebook's only goal here is to be receiving headers that say the user is over 18, so they can continue business as usual under the assertion that any users must be adults.
Because "making everyone identifiable" isn't an explicit design goal. Rather it is merely an implicit imperative (of Facebook et al, who are pushing these laws) that casts its shadow over the design. That shadow is what results in a design based around sending identifying information from the client to the server. Over time, servers will demand ever-more identifying information.
Note that this design does the exact opposite of giving parents control to protect their own children - rather it puts the ultimate decision making ability into the hands of corporate attorneys! For example, we an easily imagine a "Facebook4Kidz" site that does the bare legal minimum to avoid liability for addicting kids to dopamine drips, and no more. Client side software based around RTA headers would allow parents to choose to filter things like that out, whereas when the server is making the decision its anything goes as long as the corporate attorneys have given it the green light.
I'd prefer you join us in condemning it rather than tacitly helping to normalize it. Describing it as some inevitable trend diminishes the focus on those responsible for the latest escalations.
Where did you get the impression I don't condemn it? Acknowledging that it exists and getting worse isn't admitting defeat, unless you're unable to hold ideals with less-than-optimistic prospects. The inevitability of trends is a trick of the mind, not the person pointing out that trends exists. Pretending as if this is something Trump started and that will end with him is much more dangerous, IMO. That ignores the bipartisan consensus among political elites that the common people are to be herded and managed and that liberty and human rights are out-of-date. The problem didn't start with Trump, and it won't end with him if you approach it as a Trump problem.
Well you didn't condemn it in your comment. I do understand that you were making a normative rather than a positive statement, yes. But I see the same exact kind of normative description from people who then go on to normalize or support Trumpism.
> Pretending as if this is something Trump started and that will end with him is much more dangerous ... The problem didn't start with Trump, and it won't end with him if you approach it as a Trump problem.
I completely agree with this.
> That ignores the bipartisan consensus among political elites that the common people are to be herded and managed and that liberty and human rights are out-of-date
While I agree with this as well, I often see similar things from Trump supporters who then use it as license to support accelerationism / nihilism / oppression of others they enjoy / etc. That's what I have a problem with - this shameless tyrant has been channeling widespread frustration with many longstanding problems unacknowledged by the political establishment ("a breath of fresh air!"), but it's only a marketing trick and those exact problematic dynamics are being cranked up to 11. He's certainly honed in on many varied things that are rotting in our society, but rather than doing constructive things to address any of them he's just accelerating the rot while setting himself up as a speedbump to line his own pockets.
For reference here I'm a libertarian who was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so. But a critical assumption of both-sidesism is that both parties are similarly bad in magnitude, just with different focuses. And Trumpism is a marked escalation in the blatantly shameless anti-liberty stance of the government.
It's not miserly, rather it's recognizing the exact line the government steps over when causing harm and then refusing to compensate its victims. This is the longstanding perverse incentive that has led to this specific development, the murders of Pretti/Good/Taylor (et al), "can't beat the ride", forced plea bargaining, and so on. The very idea of sovereign immunity for executive/administrative actions needs to be wholly repudiated.
You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in good faith. Nobody owes it to you to pick out the nuance from coy questions that culminate at the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".
> You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents
I have done nothing of the sort. I know exactly what threads you're talking about, and your characterization is false and frankly offensive.
> the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".
It is clear and obvious that every single last tiny thing people are objecting to, ultimately stems from "enforcing immigration law". Nobody would have gotten shot had the people enforcing immigration law been permitted to enforce immigration law in a normal manner. As demonstrated by the fact that it exclusively happened in places where they were interfered with to an extreme degree. Similarly, people only got pulled out of cars because they refused to get out of cars when they were under arrest; they only got arrested for refusing lawful orders; they only faced lawful orders because they were physically obstructing the enforcement of immigration law. All of those things are normal consequences that could be demonstrated on a smaller scale, across time and in countries across the developed world.
ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. This is objective fact that is trivially researchable and which I have repeatedly cited; yet you and others have repeatedly attempted to deny or ignore it, or the logical consequences of the fact.
As a libertarian I strongly agree with this in isolation. But your follow up comment (now flagged) is chock full of the standard Republican social media dementia, so this original comment is actually yet another instance of lofty ideals being dishonestly abused to run cover for something even worse.
For all of the actual criticisms that can be levied at them, Democrats aren't the ones throwing our institutions onto the scrap heap, alienating our allies, or cheering on autocracy.
Obviously that "documentary" they produced on Melanoma, among the other bribes and ring-kissing.
And of course there is no substance to the approvals. This is basically the general shape of the problem with all of Grump's "policies." They purport to be fixing real longstanding problems. But rather than any kind of serious implementation structured to address the relevant details (source code publication/escrow, professional security review, testing, requirements around updates), they're merely simplistic yes/no hurdles for enabling autocratic corruption and graft.
It's just the same boring dynamic whereby every accusation is a confession. Come out swinging, and then the obvious parallels between the antichrist and Trump or even Thiel himself fall flat. Basically "no yuo"
I'd call the web interface on low-end managed switches a liability [0]. It would be interesting to write one's own 8051 firmware from the ground up [1]. It shouldn't actually be terribly hard to have some basic thing that accepts a binary chip config image from the network, right? The existing 512KiB flash ought to be enough for that. And since Realtek switch chips seem to be so popular, it could even be made generic enough to work across models. Then a user would just need a flash programmer.
My core network is Mikrotik gear with 10Gb uplinks, but it would be nice to use my old unmanaged gbit switches (Netgear GS108 mainly) with vlans rather than going nuts with more Mikrotik or having lots of homeruns.
[0] high-end ones too, for that matter
[1] the alternative I thought of first was setting up an Arduino as an I2C slave. But then you'd also want to switch the switch's power supply, and need an ethernet port on the Arduino just to connect to the switch itself.
The entire impetus for these bills is for Facebook (the sponsor of these bills) to escape liability for how they're currently harming kids. Facebook's only goal here is to be receiving headers that say the user is over 18, so they can continue business as usual under the assertion that any users must be adults.
reply