zlacker

>>mmaria+(OP)
I really don't understand why it wasn't just a requirement for Apple and Google to include a client side filter. Parent sets up the phone and it's enabled by default. Much simpler option for everyone involved.

>>tapoxi+Vb
It's because this law isn't about protecting children, but about control of the Internet. They want online activity tied to real identity as a power grab.

>>john01+Td
Yea, it's all about a permanent Digital ID and the end of any independent forums. It's the first essential steps before you get to great firewalls and social credit scores.

Remember, Tennessee, Mississippi and Texas already have similar laws in place in the US, so even a nation with better speech and gun laws is still not immune from the slow descent into technocracy.

>>airhan+Te
At least in the US the Supreme Court ruled that these sorts of laws are only kosher because they target porn, which is afforded a lower degree of legal protection (albeit not no protection at all). Trying to restrict access to protected political speech or the like the way the UK and Australia did would likely be a very different court case.

>>ls612+Qi
Given the rulings of the current SCOTUS, I'll go out on a limb and say that it's trivial to go after left-leaning political speech and impossible to go after right-leaning speech.

They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated.

There's a 0% chance this move gets struct down by SCOTUS.

>>mywitt+5m2
> They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated

No longer subsidizing left leaning speech != suppressing left leaning speech