Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the state bills do. Im suggesting that once more states pass similar bills and the feds pass this one, then sites will jist dwfault to the id scans bc it would be easier than making exceptions for the few places that its not specificially required or where the government has put thebresponsibilty on sites to keep children out. Liquor stores arent required to scan or even check ids in many states, butt since theyre responsible if a minor gets liqior there, they show compliance by checking/scanning ids universally

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Liquor :marseydrunk: stores arent required to scan or even check :marseyelonpaypig: ids in many states, butt since theyre responsible if a minor :marseygoodmap: gets liqior their they show compliance by checking/scanning universally

Sure. I bolded the important part though.

If the bill is just "You have to provide a way for parents to setup their children's accounts as "child accounts" which come with these features" then there's no punishment :marseycorner: if they don't have that flag set on some particular account. It seems like this is more about forcing the social :marseysjw: media :marseyjourno: companies to make this feature set available (which they currently don't because they fricking :marseytom: love addicted :marseyjunkie2: children).

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

its still a dumb bill. Parents should be responsible for their children, not megacorporations. If younlet your kid use social media too much then youre a neglectful parent and we have mechanisms to punish that.

!slots222

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Backtracking quite a ways from "this bill will require all websites to verify your ID to use them" lmao

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17214157313286633.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just bc a law doesnt list a specific requirement doesnt mean that it wouldnt result in a requirement to be in compliance with the law. Putting the responsibility on the sites essentially compels them to check IDs. Same way that setting an minimum drinking age and putting the liability on bars if they serve alcohol to minors compels them to check ids even in places where checking ID isnt explicitly required. Being compelled to prove youre not being negligent otherwise face liability, is ipso factor a requirement. Youre doing mental gymnastics.

:#marseymentalgymnastics:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Just bc a law doesnt list a specific requirement doesnt mean that it wouldnt result in a requirement to be in compliance with the law.

As far as I can tell there :marseycheerup: is zero requirement in the law for these social :marseysjw: media :marseyjourno: companies to preemptively determine, on their own, which accounts are and aren't used by minors. Such a thing would :marseymid: be practically impossible :marseyimpossibru: anyways but I don't see it in the law.

To contrast with your r-slurred :marseyawardretard: example, there :marseycheerup: ARE requirements in state :marseylouisiana: laws for establishments selling :marseyburgers: alcohol :marseycheers: to only sell to patrons at or over the age of 18. You're right :marseyveryworriedtrans: maybe some states :marseyeaglerider: don't specifically declare that such verification must be via an ID check :marseyelonpaypig: but the requirement is still there, and is NOT there :marseycheerup: in this law.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

companies to preemptively determine, on their own, which accounts are and aren't used by minors.

if theyre held liable for a minor using it after the fact then, they will on their own proactively and preemptively prevent themselves sufferring that liability.

don't specifically declare that such verification must be via an ID check :marseyelonpaypig: but the requirement is still there

how is it still there by your logic?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

if theyre held liable for a minor :marseyminer: using it after the fact

Is this in the law? You keep acting like it is.

how is it still there :marseycheerup: by your logic?

... because it's not legal for them to sell to customers age 17 or younger? god darn you might be more r-slurred :marseycrayoneater: than pizza tbqh

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

is thisnin the new law

yes, the law says they have to do all these specific things for minors and prevent non minors from communicating them. Therefore they have to identify the minors somehow in order to comply. If they say theyre trying to do all that butt cant show they at least tried to identify minors in order to treat them differently then they run afoul of the law.

because it's not legal for them to sell to customers age 17 or younger?

and so they are required to check id, bc if they dont and a minor gets sold alcohol they have no legal defense. You clearly have no understanding of how laws actually apply irl.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments
Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.