They’re basically minimum-viable products that by design can be used to violate the law in California when the Act goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

    • org@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      10 days ago

      Well yeah. And since no one is ever going to provide their real age, they will probably set jail time and photo ID upload requirements.

        • org@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          10 days ago

          Hey everyone, found the fed simp. Hilarious name “rioting pacifist” telling us everything is gonna be fine, just like history has always proven. lol.

          You should be “strawman fed” for your next username.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            hey, EIGHT DAY OLD TROLL, just since you haven’t got the education level to read legalese, don’t take it out on other posters here

          • Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            Honestly the level of delusion around this is Alex Jones Turning the Frogs gay, there is a shred of truth but that’s about it and you’re our here popping vines over a PR that does very little.

  • MrSulu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    Brilliant. I’d like to see how the very uninformed legislators deal with this. They will have to publically re-argue first principles

    • groet@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Why though? How does this force anybody to do anything? They will fine anybody 2500$ for handing this to a kid and call it a day. Maybe even move closer to the maximum fine because it is a deliberate breaking of the law.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    AB 1043 passed the California Assembly 76–0 and the Senate 38–0. Not a single legislator voted against it.

    1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation

    This device does not collect, store, or transmit the age of its user. This is intentional.

    Is there any reason to believe they won’t want to make an example out of intentional violators?

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        In whose eyes? They have lobbyists backing them, and a general public who doesn’t know any better, or care to know.

        Exposing the stupidity is a great goal, running headfirst into the “Who will think of the children!1!!” wall… not so much.

    • tristynalxander@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      They probably will, but I think the intentional violators are intending to make a spectacle out of it. I suspect California Voters will have it repealed in short order, but in the mean time the world should probably ruthlessly mock and isolate them.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I have serious doubts about any voters, anywhere in the world, repealing any laws like this:

        • Most people like laws that let them avoid responsibility
        • Most people are, or have been, parents at some point
        • Most parents will offload the responsibility onto “the government” instead of admitting to poor parenting

        This kind of act of insubordination, the way it is framed, I’m afraid is likely to meet the opposition of most people.

    • Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      For some people the world is black and white, I think that law is considered bad by everyone, but for some people complaying to state regulation is a crime against humanity itself.

      It is either puppies or genocide, no in-between, so adding two lines of code for json support of an age field in a systemd module warrants you to be publicly shamed, called names and probably harrassed irl.

      The guy probably just wanted to be able to continue using linux at work, and without that crap he will have to go back to windows