It does however require that OS providers “Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title.” (emphasis mine)
I wonder how much this is news outlets overreacting to a proposed bill that is not actually that bad
What do you mean, that’s horrible on its own. None of this information should be necessary to run a computer. The computer shouldn’t have to process this locally, let alone be mandated to upload it to someone’s server.
I fully agree. None of this should be required to operate a computer. We should focus on the parents that give their children free range of the internet without teaching them anything and the school ciriculum which is lacking in this department as well.
To me it feels like the lawmakers have some good intentions with this law, but it was rushed through so quickly that they forgot to ask themselves how this actually would be applied and who they are actually trying to protect.
ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
No shit. I don’t understand how anyone falls for this.
Also them using stuff like ‘online safety’ and ‘child safety’ in their legal titles needs to be used against them. Remember: Right-wing people NEVER use the words you want them to use, they always use their own. When copyright laws in the 90s were being reformed, many copyright/entertainment lawyers derided the laws by referring to them as the ‘Mickey Mouse copyright act’ because of Disney’s massive hand in how they were written and how they disproportionately benefited them.
Call it for what it is. Call it the survellience act, call it the child endangerment act, call it the transgender discrimination act. Don’t fucking fall for their ‘oh so you want anyone to groom children online’ talk through them, not to them. That is what they do to us anyway.