166
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2025
166 points (98.8% liked)
politics
25657 readers
2318 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
No one here seems to have read the article.
This bill will NOT require ID uploads or any official documents. It is simply mandating a setting that upon device setup that a parent must state the age of the user using the device. That's it.
Sounds more like a legal framework for the companies to absolve themselves of the responsibility of protecting kids if they happen to see adult content. They can point and say it's the parents fault for not inputting the age setting correctly.
It passed the assembly unanimously.
Hollywood's concern feels like splitting hairs too, or software issues that are simple to overcome:
Companies shouldn't be responsible that is what your parents are for.
If you support a minimum drinking age enforced by ID checks, you disagree with your own statement. I'm not saying you do, just that it's a pretty general statement that in practice most people disagree with. Movie tickets and games sold directly to kids will generally have to be rated for the age of kid too. You can disagree with that, but we're already at a place where that's happening. I'm not saying it's the best way to go about it, but people seem fixated on this talking point and I don't see people mentioning how this is basically already done with lots of media.
The device isn’t sold to the child, it’s sold to the parent. There is zero similarity between a parent buying a phone and handing it to the kid unmonitored, and a bar selling a beer to a 13 year old.
If phones were somehow rated M for mature or something and parents had to be with their child for purchase and there was similar messaging as to with smoking or drinking or video game violence PSAs, I think we'd be in a different place. I bought my own phones with my own money as a kid, not as young as 13, but definitely underage. If my parents thought it was going to lead to the kind of harm people are positing kids are being exposed to now, they would not have allowed much less accompanied me to get one if that was required.
If they're doing this because they think unrestricted phone access is as harmful as they think violent games or alcohol or smoking are, then it makes sense they want to similarly restrict phone access for children. Phones don't have as robust a child protection infrastructure as a lot of parents want, or the way to implement it currently is too difficult for parents to understand. I'm not saying this needs to be done, or makes sense, but companies regularly are expected to comply with child protection laws. That's why no matter what, certain medications come with child resistant packaging. They don't care if you have a child or if there's any way a child could get access, they assume it and add that protection in. I don't think pharmacists or doctors are giving kids drugs directly, and yet the childproof caps are still a thing we all have to deal with. You initially suggested that companies are not responsible for child safety, but obviously they have been previously. These are compromises we make as a society. I'm not saying they are good, just that it's already a thing.
Who do you think should determine the "m" rating? Let parents parent. And force parents to parent or punish them for spawning. Don't punish me (society) or the child.
I'm not suggesting they should be rated. Just pointing out that society already expects companies to make accommodations for children so that's not a great argument. This is not asking for ID or anything. Just asking to select general age group when setting up the device. I'm not saying I support that, I just don't think most people would call that a "punishment". Your first comment indicated you thought companies had no responsibility to protect children but current laws and society seem to suggest otherwise. I don't think yours is a good argument against what is happening and it is unlikely to convince others to your side. Judging by your usage of "spawning" it seems like you probably aren't aiming to seem well reasoned, so it's unlikely my statements are relevant to your aims anyway.
Don't let your feelings about a subject interfere with facts and the truth.
You are absolutely right, but that doesn't stop a shitty lawyer from suing companies for it.
We also shouldn't have to put dumb warning labels on sleeping pills that tell people not drive cars or operate heavy machinery, but we do because a lawyer made an argument and won somehow.
I love it every time you open a pill bottle you need to connect to Internet and have ai scan your face and id to prove you're an adult. Hmm so you want to take warning labels off and have the dumb people fight the lawyers to the death? I accept your proposal.
Seems like the parents would have to be vetted to make that Proclamation and their identity connected to that IP for that to happen. So in reality this is a betrayal, in a way that makes it look like it's not a betrayal so people like you can say no it's not like that when it is.
Nowhere in the bill text does it say that. Please cite your sources. The bill is less than a five minute read. https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025