What a weird approach, and wording. Also, that’s what tariffs are for.

I’d bet some shmeckles on it tracing back to the kremlin. No one stood to benefit more with Brexit and a weakened EU. Though, to be more precise: “among those limited to zero sum mentality, weakening EU sure looks great for Russia”

Children are in real danger of harm, as a result of this. I am thinking of the general safety for children, in wanting them to not be individually identified and targeted for manipulation and have their data sold.

It also equally applies to everyone else. What absolute ghouls and/or dimwits that are pushing for this.

I’m genuinely curious as to what the fuck identifying on the OS level has to do with social media, and then what the fuck that has to do with protecting kids. If you’re a parent who engages with your child, and… hear me out here… take care of your child, restricting access is done the same way they they don’t get access to detergents, and similar.

In the consumption of media, have tools that let parents manage and control the type of content they can access. Similar to how you can child proof cabinets.

And, back to my original question. What the fuck does this have to do with identifying on the fucking operating system level?

I’m genuinely curious if anyone pushing this has been asked to justify this? Surely, you’d expect some aspect of reasoning to be behind this, no?

Edit: not to mention. Corporations have shown to reliably and consistently be bereft of any and all ethics and morals. One can more easily argue that identifying children is likely going to be harmful, as they’ll be tracked and targeted in any way that can be argued to private equity groups (or similarly condensed evils), to generate “value”. “Want to do behavioral experiment on kids? We can now do this insanely cheap, as we track the effect on a per child basis”

So, what about an operating system is restricted material? That’s what this law requires.

Edit: wow, you’re all over the place here. Are you paid (perhaps run?) by Meta?

What permissions does the extension need to work? Then, what is the maximum level of damage a malicious update to said extension can do with those permissions?