this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
564 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
82494 readers
4500 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From what I can tell, the 'age' part is misdirection. They want to restrict computer use to the "good" people, to make it "safer".
Using age restrictions first allows legislation to be passed "for the children" using the idea of potential harm to theoretical children. However, in practice, legislators expect the implementation of the age check to be capable of checking anything else they want to about your identity, as a prerequisite for access. Probably using a combination of face scans and ID scans.
I don't even understand what good this is. what does this do for them? The government has a database of identities and now it's going to have a database of identities with computers? for what? Steven uses Windows, Susie uses Linux.
if you're using internet at home or on a cell phone, they've already got your online identity or whatever. what is it that I'm missing
You arent going deep enough. Its about building a web of all of your online identities to crush dissent and influence public opinion. Susie frequents anarchist.nexus under the user the_cloaked and there she seems to interact with another user, lilanarkiddy, a lot. Steven's windows computer also reported that he frequents the site, under the user lilarnarkiddy. And you see where that will lead to.
It isn't even just the government, big tech wants this too. They want to be able to track everything you do with your computer, and that's more easily achieved if OS level identification is required. Big tech wants it for data harvesting and ad targeting, the government wants it for surveillance and narrative control. The end goal is government verified digital ID that will be required to use any operating system. There will be no anonymity anymore. This creates a panopticon effect in which people police themselves because they know they are always being watched. Furthermore, the information you receive in your social media feeds and web searches can be silently curated based on what is known about your political attitudes. It can all be managed by AI.
they already have digital fingerprints. they don't need OS level anything to do this. smartphones are doing it all
To an extent, yes, but they could do it much more easily and accurately if there was a unique, biometric identifier associated with all your actions across your devices which cannot be disabled.
This is just the slippery slope argument.
The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.
California, as of today, does not require any kind of verification to install an OS (how it's always been).
This law gets passed, now they require "attestation".
A year or two from now, they're gonna push for for actual age verification.
A year or two after that, the government will make a new law saying that your drivers license is no longer a valid form of identification, they're gonna need a retina scan or some other form of "bio" identification.
Next thing you know, you'll be pressing your dick imprint on your PC's automated Cock-Scanner-v4 encryption tray that pops out of your laptop like a cd-rom drive every time you need to check your email.
Slippery slope, indeed.
Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn't disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.
What do you think their intentions are, and why?
The intentions for the law?
This ia a quote directly from the author of the bill link for reference.
Now of course the obvious question many people might ask is "are they being truthful?" But that is a question that people will have to answer for themselves.
Are you pre or post 9/11? It is very obvious that the slope is slippery.
Non-fallacious forms can also exist. It is fairly obvious that it is warranted in authoritarian regimes to expect progression (regression?).