Comment on Colorado proposing Bill to move age verification to Operating System rather than web site

• SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Presumably quite selectively, based on the user’s political leanings.

  Not defend Democrats too much here, but they clearly have far less of a habit of doing this than the Republicans, even if they do enforce things quite selectively when it comes to actual leftists while letting Nazis run around with seeming impunity.

  Colorado has been a solidly Blue state since the W. Bush years, and even then, it was pretty split down the middle with just over half going to Bush.

  Further, the two main sponsors of the bill are both Democrats.

  Once again, not saying Democrats aren’t guilty of selective enforcement, just pointing out that they’re far less likely to do so (or at least less likely to do so against conservatives, for genuine leftists it seems up for debate).

  Now, that also means nothing in context to how other politicians can use this kind of legislation negatively, even if the writers and sponsors truly have the best of intentions. Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well, and way back then folks like me were saying “this seems pretty dangerous, especially if we ever have a despot take control of the country and the levers for these tools” which clearly has come to pass.

  source

  • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well,

    How do you know what their intentions were?

    source

    • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Well, not all of them, obviously. Yet, for example, I tend to think Joe Biden actually did have good intentions considering the bulk of the PATRIOT Act was based on his prior legislation in the 90s, his Omnibus Counterterrorism Act.

      People who were more clearly war hawks like Hillary Clinton? Probably a lot less likely to have had great intentions.

      Yet others, like Ron Wyden, who has been a consistent critic of the out of control national security state and voted against military intervention in Iraq in 2002 also voted for the PATRIOT Act. He also spent a great deal of time trying to amend the PATRIOT Act as well.

      source

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        The left was saying that the PATRIOT Act was a bad idea from day one, just like we were with the Iraq War. People keep ignoring the left (or dismiss us as paranoid) and we keep getting proven right over and over and over again.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • hector@lemmy.today ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        You lost all credibility early on in your first statement, to anyone living in reality paying attention, your analysis is worth nothing.

        source
• DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Are they going to check people’s PCs at the state borders as they move in then?

  source

  • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Do you have any fruit computers to declare?

    source
• hector@lemmy.today ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  The courts should strike it down, I don’t have faith they will side with the constitution, but it’s clearly unconstititional and beyond the authority of the state as well, in the realm of interstate commerce which is explicitly given to the feds, whom can’t be trusted either obviously.

  But the 1st amendment is clearly invalidating this, forcing people to identify themselves to groups that will record everything they say or do and sell it to everyone, including the government, that will chill speech, and groups will punish people for their speech.

  Too bad scotus is all in on punishing people for speech though.

  source

  • Attacker94@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I don’t think it will be cut and dry on state vs federal, although if we follow trends it will get shutdown because the feds love abusing the commerce and elastic clause. And I’m not overly familiar with the Colorado constitution, but the actual text isn’t actually that invasive, it makes no requirements on data collection, it only requires for it to be obtained somehow, which could be self reporting ala parental controls, it only requires that once the data is obtained that they must provide an age bracket and only and age bracket to services that request it and only services that request it.

    source

    • hector@lemmy.today ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The very act of forcing it to be collected chills freedom of speech. Leaving it undefined how it’s done should make the law more likely to get overturned not less.

      Knowing your age was collected, and is stored somewhere, connected to your computer, and that everything done on that computer can then be connected back to that positive ID, chills speech, as much as they might try to betray the bill of rights with this mealy mouthed attempt to surrender us to Tech.

      source