| ▲ | catapart 13 hours ago |
| Like who? Name some names of people pushing for this, and we can dissect their motivation. |
|
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| How about the first country to ban social media for kids, Australia[1]? So far as I can tell the PM/party leader was not in the files. Of course, if you make your inclusion criteria absurdly wide (eg. anyone who voted or advocated for age based restrictions in any shape or form), you'll probably find some pedophiles or even epstien island visitors from sheer luck alone. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment_(Socia... |
| |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | This has been on Labor’s agenda, in various forms for many years. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-p... | | |
| ▲ | gruez 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't change the conclusion, unless you're trying to imply the entire party is full of pedophiles. | | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My point is that this has been consistent with their policy for the last couple of decades, and that the recent round of scandals have nothing to do with it. | |
| ▲ | scotty79 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At this point the burden of proof is on the party. Benefit of the doubt has ran out. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Benefit of the doubt has ran out ...because they're pushing age verification legislation? Did I miss some massive Labor pedophile scandal? If not, this just feels like a tautology. Labor is only pushing age verification because they're pedophiles, and they're pedophiles because they're pushing age verification. Moreover even if we ignore that, what does that mean for the rest of their platform items? If Labor is pro net-zero, is it fair to characterize the situation as "the people pushing for net-zero are pedophiles"? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| These laws were passed almost exclusively by the party of self-proclaimed free speech warriors led by Epstein's best friend. State | Effective Date | Legislature Control
------------------+----------------+----------------------
Alabama | Oct 1, 2024 | Republican
Arizona | Sep 26, 2025 | Republican
Arkansas | Jul 31, 2023 | Republican
California | Jan 1, 2027 | Democratic
Florida | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican
Georgia | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
Idaho | Jul 1, 2024 | Republican
Indiana | Aug 16, 2024 | Republican
Kansas | Jul 1, 2024 | Republican
Kentucky | Jul 15, 2024 | Republican
Louisiana | Jan 1, 2023 | Republican
Mississippi | Jul 1, 2023 | Republican
Missouri | Nov 30, 2025 | Republican
Montana | Jan 1, 2024 | Republican
Nebraska | Jul 18, 2024 | Nonpartisan (unicameral)
North Carolina | Jan 1, 2024 | Republican
North Dakota | Aug 1, 2025 | Republican
Ohio | Sep 30, 2025 | Republican
Oklahoma | Nov 1, 2024 | Republican
South Carolina | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican
South Dakota | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
Tennessee | Jan 13, 2025 | Republican
Texas | Sep 19, 2023 | Republican
Utah | May 3, 2023 | Republican
Virginia | Jul 1, 2023 | Divided
Wyoming | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
|
| |
| ▲ | tredre3 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's curious that you've omitted California (Democrats) and Colorado (Democrats) from your list. | | | |
| ▲ | gruez 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This table seems suspect. I spot checked Texas, and while the party affiliation is correct, the dates are not. You put Sept 19, 2023 as the date for Texas, but Wikipedia[1] says it "Enacted September 1, 2024" and "Enacted June 13, 2023". Looking at the other dates, I'm not sure how you got Sept 19, 2023, even through a typo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOPE_Act | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you cherry-pick harder? Geez... | | |
| ▲ | bdangubic 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | 25 states isn't cherry-picking :) geeeeeeeeeeez! | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think/hope they were being sarcastic. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it's bipartisan and even fucking international. I think there is a very obvious conspiracy to get this done, but maybe it's a big coincidence that governments and politicians everywhere suck now. |
| |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was talking about the party. This shit is and always has been pushed from both parties. Even democrat states like California and Colorado are on board. See also, the OS age verification legislation. | | |
| ▲ | cvhc 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | TBH California one doesn't require age verification (while many other states do). It only requires the OS to provide a mechanism for the user to indicate their age group and apps should use the information (instead of asking for PII themselves). It's a fake one, but somehow drew most attention. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If that is true about the California case, it is basically a fluke. Lobbyists don't have total control of the legislation after all. It sounds almost benign when posed that way, but it is the wrong solution either way. The better solution is to tell people to install filtering software to block content that they don't want. Then you don't have to worry about compliance of individual sites, personal information, or any of it. This filtering strategy also makes sense for privacy and handling the subjective nature of what is age-appropriate or offensive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wa7dj229de6 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Zuckerberg? https://mashable.com/article/tech-ceos-epstein-files-musk-ga... |
