These people do not care about protecting kids. Most kids are molested or abused by their loved ones. These “leaders” have their friends and family raping kids bffr.
The market is a self aware AI with self preservation that runs on both silicon and pink skull jelly.
Never forget who is behind this https://youtu.be/Yd7j_u-wPoM
It’s not “coordinated” any more than every action in service of capital is. These policies and values coincide because all of these liberal states share common imperatives. The internet is a problem for liberals; it is impossible to fully control without diminishing its use for industry, anti-capitalism has flourished online even with the overwhelming corporate promotion of fascism and liberalism, and the international nature of the medium has made imperialism more visible to the metropole than ever.
They correctly identify that the internet is a threat to their security, and they are moving to secure it and punish as many people as they can to discourage its use for disruptive purposes.
I agree with the logic you present for why the capitalist class wants policies like this, but the specific timing does come from coordinated efforts here. It’s class warfare and they have intense organization amongst themselves. The charge is being led by big tech firms and their lobbying groups making a unified push right now to consolidate their control over online speech, communication, and surveillance. But the reasoning you present is absolutely sound
I don’t know how contrived the mechanisms have to be before people just accept that these ideological forces do not need specific mechanisms to exist. Tech firms did not produce liberalism and capitalism, as they did not exist when these ways of organizing emerged. Everything you described here are consequences of this system and the means by which it reproduces itself, they are not the system itself. Yeah, they organize, they do so because they have a common interest which is capital, and the imperatives of profit and infinite growth historically manifest consistently in formal and informal mechanisms of control like this.
Class warfare doesn’t apply here any better than it does to the informal consequences of neoliberal individualism which is both intentionally reinforced in media and culturally through its subscription by middle-class property owners. It may look coordinated, but that term distorts how these systems of power function and reproduce by creating the narrative that there is a select group of people responsible for this outcome, even while individual actions are taken to realise it.
Yes, their class interests push them into class solidarity and coordinated actions to suppress the working class. It doesn’t have to be a conscious individual alignment for it to be class warfare, all that matters is they do align themselves and collectively wield their power for their shared goals, which the capitalists do. I don’t see how you can recognize their shared material interests and the ways in which that manifests in them as a class coordinating for those interests along common lines, and still look at it as random individual actions just being stumbled into. I don’t know what argument you think you’re making, I don’t think the current crop of capitalists created capitalism nor consciously devised its mechanisms. They are part of this socioeconomic system though, it doesn’t just happen to them, regardless of the fact it existed before this generation of its ruling class. There absolutely is a group of people responsible for this outcome: the bourgeoisie and the state that serves them. It is a feature of capitalism.
If had a nickel for every time I had a person with a passing interest in Marxism mansplain the world to me. This is a starting point, materialism is not exclusively how socialists and anarchists criticize or understand capitalism.
You seem to think this is contradictory, which should spur you to question something more fundamental instead of assuming others are just dumber than you. “Coordination” would require a conspiratorial level of organizing between groups that, while maintaining common interests, distorts the reality of this system to the point of incomprehensibility. If your way of thinking finds it impossible to analyze the interaction between people – individual actors – and the system they are positioned in – as in their class interests – then you will find this system incomprehensible. This is so because, guess what, there are individual actors who are not powerlessly making decisions in accordance with their positionality.
In order to do that, you must start understanding these things as relational. There are class interests motivating these policies, those class interests are not the sole mover of these actions. To suggest as much would do what you are trying to do right now, which is universalise human action. I wonder if you’ve thought about power dynamics in indigenous nations under settler-colonialism, and what it would mean to only interpret their navigation of this system with the frameworks that originate from Europe with the goal of understanding European ways of organizing. How do you understand conflicting interests within shared classes even under the same material conditions?
Getting fuckin tired of people on here presuming they’re all-knowing; many of these interactions happen to occur in discussions on Europe, go figure. Won’t be responding to anything else from you unless it is actually serious.
Is it really conspiratorial when the people who own all of the capital create political parties, lobbying groups, think tanks, newspapers, etc to collectively push their ideas of how the world should work into action? It’s a conspiracy for sure, one that is in the open and well documented. And my analysis literally does discuss the dialectic of individual actions with their corresponding class and broader class organizations, it’s my main point even. Furthermore, I’m not mansplaining a passing interest in Marxism; I’m not a man, I’m presenting my analysis while trying to acknowledge shared aspects with yours, and I’ve been active in organizing for Marxist, decolonial, and social justice struggles for over a decade. I think it does us no favors to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the structure of the system in front of us for individualized analysis. And stripping the nuance from the argument I present to make it out as class reductionist does nothing for either of us. I’m talking about acknowledging class at all when your argument seems to be to ignore it entirely. Yes individuals within a class can have conflicting desires or interests, the point is that they primarily share their core interests and rally behind them, and we have endless examples of this.
But it is. It’s not nations themselves advocating or voting for it. It’s the EU top-down trying to get this to pass and instructing the leaders of member countries how to push it through.
Strange, I didn’t realize there was any non-liberal, anti-capitalist states within the EU.
I think you’ve misunderstood the point, what I’m saying is that these sorts of policies are an inevitable consequence of liberalism because it requires an oppressive level of population control to function. The internet is a threat to that control, and therefore liberal states have responded predictably and consistently by moving to create as many vectors of restriction and punishment as they can. The UK is not part of the EU, Canada (which has been pushing for this for half a decade now) isn’t, Australia isn’t, but they are all capitalist and imperialist liberal states.
I’d prefer an IQ test instead of an age verification. Hehe
The Epstein class never hesitates to fuck over the unwashed.
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”
Well eu doesn’t care about os yet. Just social media
just ban this bigtech “social” media for everyone and push people to fediverse then.
Fuck it, I’ll just host my own Lemmy instance.
Unless it becomes bigger, after that they’ll come for you.
So what if you do not verify you wont able to browse p0rn or what?
No. There will still be a billion ways to acquire pornography. This won’t solve anything. Personally I don’t think this is something that needs solving, all the tools required to do so are already available for those that want them.
This is about surveillance.
Reminder: The reason that this seems coordinated is because it is.
Meta has spent over $2 BILLION dollars to push this everywhere.
Being able to link accounts to actual people is incredibly valuable for Meta and all of the other companies who sell your privacy for cash.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_billion_in_nonprofit_grants_and_45/
I’ve been spamming this lately but it feels warranted:
Please reach out to your family and urge them to stop using Facebook (or worse, any form of reels) if they still do. The onus is on the informed now. It’s not enough to just ask the tech barons to stop, we also need to divert their support.
Yes, we need to vouch with our own attention and money. Many people stay on those platforms because their friends are there but maybe tell your friends where they can find you from now on. If we just suggest that there’s another platform, they’ll never leave. Most people got enough stuff going on in their lives and rather choose what’s comfortable
The EU approach is not without its own problems. The reference code is open, but the operational system is not self-hostable. You cannot run your own trusted identity provider. The wallet apps require Google Play Services or the iOS equivalent, which locks out users of privacy-focused Android distributions like GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, and LineageOS. […]
ollama launch <your AI agentic frontend here> -- "Write me an age attestastion app for Android that implements EU's attestation reference framework without any bootloader checks."The problem isn’t the software, there is already software that provides identity services.
The problem is that you will not have the cryptographic signatures that authenticate your app as a trusted identity provider. Nor would your app be able to fool the hardware attestation, which is built on unique signed cryptographic certificates that are signed by the manufacturer’s Certificate Authority and physically burned into the TPM on your device.
In order to pass attestation, your system must boot into a trusted OS image and then it has to prove that by submitting a signed quote, generated by information stored in your TPM along with keys signed by the manufacturer’s CA.
This isn’t something that you can hack around, it’s built on cryptographic verification of your entire boot sequence.
Welp, this was bound to happen, wasn’t it? I’m pretty sure they’re referring to this application, which I stumbled upon a while back. If I remember correctly, the app “allows” (or implicitly forces) the user to store a government issued identity: able to attest to an age-restricted website, whether or not the user is of age.
It does this, supposedly by “just” sharing an age-bracket with the website; but here’s the kicker: the Union, in its generosity, has granted their citizens an in-app option, to withdraw this signal from the websites it has been provided to. What this means in practice, is the app storing one’s government-issued identify, also ties back to every account requiring “age-verification”…
So now, every device containing the app, has the owner’s government-issued identify on it, together with connections to every age-restricted service. And considering the apps are maintained by the Union, or member states (through their own implementations), creating a backdoor to the application’s contents… I mean to “observe app usage”, would be absolutely trivial.
Again, I’ve read it a while back, so some things might’ve changed, and my memory might be spotty; but I’m quite sure it’s along the lines I’ve described.
Kill your fucking owners or you cannot have nice things.
We have too much tech. Capitalism and authoritarianism are no longer compatible with progress.
I’m starting to think the tinfoil hat people were onto something
We were always onto something!
Just admit that we’re in an informational WWIII already.
Separate issue I think but yeah, we are
Every day closer to a totalitarian world nanny state that only protects the elite.
Luigi was onto something
