It is about California. The comment you replied to was about California. My comments replying to you have been about California. That original comment you replied to and my own comments have said that California’s law is reasonable. You keep saying it isn’t, but you have yet to present any reason why.

Once again, that post is about age verification, so it doesn’t apply to the California law. If there are no documents or pictures stored for age verification, there is nothing to breach.

He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.

what is the point of the OS asking

Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.

Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.

Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.

This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.

deleted by creator

He is the same as Sotomayor and Jackson according to many Lemmings.

Tesla is moving as much manufacturing out of California as it can. The only reason it started in California was that there was already a factory there from a company that had already vacated it years ago after it had unionized, the only unionized Toyota plant in the U.S. to this day. Tesla was more interested in getting manufacturing started as quickly as possible than it was in reducing costs, so it took over an existing factory instead of building one in a “right to work” state and paid workers enough not to unionize or stop work. Now that Tesla has factories in Texas, it has shut down production of the Model X and Model S, which were produced in California, in hopes of eventually vacating or replacing entirely with robot workers, which are the only thing they’re making there now.

Dude, I already told you I’m in California. I know what’s happening here.

Not if they get penalized for it more than they benefit from breaking the law, and California is strict about enforcing labor laws.

Look man, in addition to being counterproductive, the actions you’re defending have a lot of collateral damage. It’s similar to Israel saying that they should be able to bomb Gaza to get terrorists even though the bombings also affect children, which is another example of an action that is both counterproductive and has a lot of collateral damage.

There is no money spent on security for union busting in California. California has strict laws against violent union busting.

Not in California. Air pollution causing health problems is a real problem though.

As I’ve already explained, the only way to solve that problem is security measures. Even if they pay people well, that doesn’t stop a disgruntled or temporarily insane employee from destroying the warehouse.

Collective bargaining extracts as much value out of the employer as the employer gets from placing the warehouse in that location.

Whether they pay workers more or not, they need to worry about arson, so they’ll solve that problem first by imposing draconian security measures. Once they solve that problem, underpaying workers is no longer a problem for them.

I’m a history buff. The NLRA is why unions work now where before there was a lot of labor-related violence.

Unionists didn’t use violence because they didn’t have “legal protection,” they did it because capitalists and police would break their bodies either if they worked or resisted. They’d call in militias to bash unionist skulls, they’d pay them in scrip and prevent them or their children from ever freeing themselves.

Those are all illegal now. That’s why unionizing works now where it didn’t before.

I don’t buy your concern for these communities at all, have you tried to check if there was any harm?

I live in California. Air quality is always an issue, whether it’s from wildfires or avgas from local airports. These cause real health issues, and the latter causes measurable IQ drops in the poor communities surrounding those airports. Industrial fires are something we need to worry about just like Tehranis have to worry about oil refinery fires.

They responded with violence because there were no legal protections for labor unions. Those protections exist in California.

Burning a warehouse is the least effective way to help people. The arsonist ends up in jail, the surrounding community suffers health problems, and the warehouse owners put more security and restrictions on employees instead of paying them more. Unionizing forces the warehouse owner to meet the demands of the workers.

Maybe unionize and strike instead of poisoning the people in the surrounding area, who are mostly working poor.

Unlike laws against making guns, this law applies to printer sellers, not to their users.

You called me a centrist, but I’m really a progressive with a brain. We have the same goals. I’m the only one who presented a realistic way of reaching them.

All you got from voting blue no matter who was universal healthcare, gay rights, sanctions on settlers, emissions reductions, banking regulations, etc. By continuing to vote blue no matter who, all you would have gotten was the public option (single payer), continued emissions reductions via cap and trade or carbon tax, universal childcare, progress towards the two state solution (via follow through on the Oslo Accords instead of Iraqi shenanigans), trans rights, etc. All you got by burning everything down was faster genocide, removing healthcare subsidies, more oil dependence, removal of black and minority history from national parks, the Iran war, mass removal of legal status followed by deportation, penalties against abortion, etc. Even if you aren’t directly harmed because you’re sitting in a position of privilege, burning everything down has real and immediate consequences for the people you claim you want to help, me among them.

You say you’re not a conservative or a Russian bot, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Now if you’d like to debate what actually works instead of throwing innuendo around, be my guest. I’ll watch your reply.

Easy. Vote blue no matter who. Then primary the party further left. That’s the only workable solution. If anyone tells you otherwise, ask them on which planet their solution works. You think NYC could have gone straight from Giuliani to Mamdani? Fuhgeddaboudit.