God isn’t pleased, for TempleOS shall not concede
This appears to be part of the “Parents Decide Act”
Sure would be nice if parents would decide to parent their own kids instead of making it everyone else’s problem.
I love it how irresponsible people always make it harder for the rest of us. You know who I’m talking about. Yes, the fucking rich that’s who. They don’t pay taxes on their wealth and barely do on their income. All that money is missing to educate adults and children alike.
If adults had the time to be educated and to educate children, there wouldn’t be such a stupid bill. There aren’t enough teachers, parents dont earn enough to take the time to learn about technology, and children go to underfunded schools lacking teachers who have the time and pay to learn about this stuff and teach it to kids.
The rich are the source of all the problems here.
You’re falling for the Nazi bait this is:
And of they can’t, because they can’t. Every parent is not the ideal parent and will never be, heck there’s parents who are retarded (in the literal sense).
But lets say it’s the average tech illiterate parent, who thinks computers are a gaming machine for kids. Imagine the amount of social engineering and how the marketing departments of companies trying to make kids addicted to their platform. The industries are pouring trillions of dollars in marketing, are you confident that regular parents have a chance of competing with them?
i’m in no way of supporting this because it’s done for other nefarious reason, just commenting on the troupe that parents is responsible for their own kids. We can say that all day, but the reality is that they don’t know what impact it has on their kids mental health and how damaging short term dopamine addiction is for their children. Society is still responsible to help parents navigate healthy behavior for their children.
Tbh if children was the concern of this law, then you would allow parents to sue tiktok and other platforms that have made their children addicted to the platform. You should also be able to sue influencers for promoting stuff to children (they know the age of their userbase).
Still parenting is hard, especially when you are competing with phds in behavioral science or psychologists that help these platforms design their addiction mechanism.
“Parenting is hard” doesn’t take the responsibility away from parents to actually parent their kids and to be aware of what their kids are doing online. I’m not saying everyone will magically start doing that, or that we should expect them to. I’m saying it’s not the government’s job to close that gap. The government doesn’t know what’s best for kids. It’s extremely self evident in the whole age verification push itself. Completely tech illiterate boomers making flawed assumptions about how to handle a situation, and destroying everyone’s privacy in the process. They don’t get to do that just because the US is full of idiots who don’t know how to be parents.
This commenter is pointing out that - definitionally - most parents lack what they need to mount an effective defense or even understand one is needed, because of how the deck is stacked. It isn’t random uninvolved people making the tech addictive and harmful, (contrasting with parents as a group) - it’s roughly the people best on the planet at making those things damaging, who are doing so.
Commenter is not inviting government overreach, but lamenting that every parent is being asked to defend against this most pernicious force, and it’s unrealistic to expect them to succeed. As we clearly see, they don’t succeed, they lose! State of mental development for kids in the US for example is in absolute shambles.
Doesn’t seem very controversial at all, kind of just an obvious observation tbh.
Ok, but what’s the solution then? Certainly not the age verification pushes we have seen recently. The tech itself should be regulated, not the users.
Very difficult question.
For the record, I am extremely hostile to government privacy violations in the name of “protecting children”, which the approach under discussion clearly is. We all agree about that.
I don’t have great solutions, but none of mine revolve around shaming parents or insisting they become magically aware of information they lack (and may be flat out unable to really comprehend). That’s not to say you were doing that.
Community wise we can do a lot more educating about the harms. Legislatively and technologically, zero trust indications allowing specific categories of content - very coarse categories and simple binary “allowed / not allowed” - nothing to do with age or PII - would be approaches worth considering.
But fundamentally doing these things wrong is at least as harmful as leaving parents to solo the task. I’d prefer it be up to the ill-equipped and wildly varying parents than to anything centralized unless the centralized approach has verifiable transparency and all the right goals and approaches (a pipe dream). But if nothing else we should require our education and government systems to take a clear stance about educating re: harms.
Tbh if children was the concern of this law, then you would allow parents to sue tiktok and other platforms that have made their children addicted to the platform.
Already happening
You should also be able to sue influencers for promoting stuff to children (they know the age of their userbase).
Absolutely yes.
We can say that all day, but the reality is that they don’t know what impact it has on their kids mental health and how damaging short term dopamine addiction is for their children.
We absolutely do know. Which is why we stopped giving cocaine and heroin to kids.
But lets say it’s the average tech illiterate parent, who thinks computers are a gaming machine for kids.
Yeah… Are you seriously advocating that parental responsibility shouldn’t be a thing? If someone is that stupid, they shouldn’t have a kid. And yes. That’s epic levels of stupid.
Are you seriously advocating that parental responsibility shouldn’t be a thing?
Very clearly not advocating that, what an uncharitable read.
I don’t think it’s uncharitable at all. That sounds entirely like it’s saying parents shouldn’t be held responsible for knowing about the things they buy their children.
If anyone buys their kid a phone/tablet/computer and gives them unfettered access to the Internet because they think it’s “just a gaming machine” is irresponsible.
I’m not saying a parent should, or could deny their kid access, but you need to AT THE BARE MINIMUM understand what you are putting in that kid’s hands.
How many adults can say they understand what devices they put in their own hands? Practically none.
I’m merely pointing out the huge difficulty here, these things are engineered to manipulate us. It’s not as simple as “well, parents should simply know what to do”.
Your read was uncharitable cuz the comment you replied to directly said they “in no way support this”, and was written from the very first premise as being ABOUT parents who DO NOT or CAN NOT understand the danger you go on to strawman and bitch about.
Again - your reading was uncharitable, it did not try to take the commenters actual point of view, it simply ranted about what you felt like talking about, that they never said.
I think your reading of my reading is far more uncharitable than anything I said.
Double true given that I am not the only responder who got the same impression from that post.
The whole post is an abdication of parental responsibility because people smarter than them are victimizing their children.
There are steps a parent can take. Even something as simple as talking to your kids about not believing bullshit just because of social media. Teaching them critical thinking skills. Teaching them to look for a motive in any message. Teaching them that it’s a trap designed to get them addicted.
But instead, “are you confident that regular parents have a chance of competing with them”.
It doesn’t fucking matter. You have to try, but just throwing your hands up is not even remotely helpful.
[Edit: eh, my comment was frankly unnecessary]
All operating systems! ALL OF THEM. Bet not one of the politicians would be able to even define what the fuck that even means.
I wish they would attempt to do that to all operating systems, that’s a hell of a wide net and I’m damn sure not holding up my ID for my thermostat.
What about the OS in my ID
What about the OS inside the CPU of your PC
uh…wat? Like…are we going to start having illegal linux distros?
And I am fucking here for it.
I believe Ageless Linux is a meme distro to do exactly that.
Yes, except it isn’t a meme distro.
The sponsor of this bill is Josh Gottheimer. Ballotpedia says the Democratic primary is on June 2, but doesn’t list any challengers. If you’re a local, maybe you know if he has a challenger?
In any case, do the following if you live there:
-
Add “fire Josh Gottheimer” to your calendar for both June 2 2026, and November 3 2026
-
Send him a letter/email explaining why this issue is important enough for you to vote Republican if it goes through, and maybe include a screenshot of that calendar entry just for fun
If enough people send a message like that, he’ll hopefully work to kill it.
If you don’t live in New Jersey, write and send a similar letter/email to your own representative. If you’re a Republican, say you’ll be willing to vote Democrat instead.
Regardless, what you shouldn’t do is bitch and complain on the internet to strangers on the internet.
Congress people are mostly tech illiterate and willing to eat whatever bull$hit big tech lobbysits feed them. They are not, however, stupid enough to ignore constituents who are angry enough to send them a letter. Why? Because most Americans only ever vote in presidential elections, so the population of people who will vote in a midterm (much less a primary) is very small. Going through the effort to write an email (or mail a physical letter) is a strong signal that you are one of those people who will get their ass out to the polls on election day and hurt their chances.
We don’t all live in the US…
But that’s food advice for people living there.
-
This is all systemd’s fault. ☹️
Yee of so little imagination, this is a FAFO opportunity!
Next step would be ageless approved license(s). Aggressively charge companies or individuals using ur copyrighted work if it’s combined with any software which violates user privacy or that differentiates children from other users.
license violation fee
Charges a licensing fee, not per user, but per “affected child” globally or number of children globally whichever is greater, exp the national debt. Which will quickly approach infinity. This fee no longer applies when there are no longer any legislation globally which targets: freedom of speech, journalism, privacy, fuel efficiency, vehicle regulation, or gun control. Anything they compulsively cannot stop legislating.
Add executable poopoo, to compliment peepee, that runs software which violates this license. Along with a software package that has an ageless approved license. Distribute out to all linux distros, especially distros with server releases.
This would be much quicker than making suggestions to developers to promote packages with an ageless approved license.
My point being, collectively, tech copyright owners have outsized power greater than all the Mega IT corps combined. You flex that muscle by writing more aggressive licenses. Permissive and GPL might be a thing of the past cuz more aggressive licenses are required for the current era.
Otherwise legislators will tell you what you can write by threatening coders.
CC John McCardle (have messaged him with a link to this comment)
lol. Do you think this for real?
