They’re basically minimum-viable products that by design can be used to violate the law in California when the Act goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

    • org@lemmy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Well yeah. And since no one is ever going to provide their real age, they will probably set jail time and photo ID upload requirements.

        • org@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Hey everyone, found the fed simp. Hilarious name “rioting pacifist” telling us everything is gonna be fine, just like history has always proven. lol.

          You should be “strawman fed” for your next username.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            hey, EIGHT DAY OLD TROLL, just since you haven’t got the education level to read legalese, don’t take it out on other posters here

          • Rioting Pacifist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Honestly the level of delusion around this is Alex Jones Turning the Frogs gay, there is a shred of truth but that’s about it and you’re our here popping vines over a PR that does very little.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    22 hours ago

    AB 1043 passed the California Assembly 76–0 and the Senate 38–0. Not a single legislator voted against it.

    1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation

    This device does not collect, store, or transmit the age of its user. This is intentional.

    Is there any reason to believe they won’t want to make an example out of intentional violators?

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        In whose eyes? They have lobbyists backing them, and a general public who doesn’t know any better, or care to know.

        Exposing the stupidity is a great goal, running headfirst into the “Who will think of the children!1!!” wall… not so much.

  • MrSulu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Brilliant. I’d like to see how the very uninformed legislators deal with this. They will have to publically re-argue first principles