Those are not contrary, but complementary things.

I got so many downvotes last time I suggested this, it was just comical to me how many people get pissed at the implication that they aren't watching their kids, while not watching their kids.

we're due for a modern re-framing on rights and personal autonomy.

but we might need to design it fully as local coops and roll over the epstein-class in order to get it enshrined.

if you let them change it, they'll, (as obtusely as possible,) re-phrase everything to not actually accomplish what it was supposed to.

we need big changes, and we need them yesterday, because the future is here and it's fucking us all up. the only people with the time and social placement to affect change are the ones that have been coddled into that position through either nepotism or corporate interest. yadda.

still need voter reform... hopefully the next people voted in specifically on voter reform don't just go "oops actually we weren't for that at all, hee hee." (canadian liberal party are also just the backup conservatives i guess)

and my god, there should be some accountability for directly lying to and misleading the voter base. the number of USA politicians i see that can't answer a fucking question is embarrassing to anyone thinking they don't live in a fascist state.

like, those promises, or statements, or blatant intentional incompetence should come with some form of accountability. if i fuck up too many lattes i have to live on the street, but politicians can laugh in your face after doing fuckall and taking your money.

generally anyone willing to take a position of power to hugely affect all of our lives and well being should be scared shitless for betraying their voters so blatantly.

more than anything we just need a whole new damned system which is built on modern science and not hundred years ancient aristocracy. it is possible. the only reason it doesn't seem feasible is that the people with power and influence have been spending a weird amount of their excess ensuring that the system doesn't enable or benefit anyone outside of the epstein class.

yadda yadda rant rant, i'm tired.

You need to win every time. I need you to lose only once.

We Europeans are well aware because of the Chat Control that they are trying to push here.

We have to be vigilant and fight every fight.

Never give up.

The only possible cou ter to this is to enshrine the right to own a computer and internet access into your constitution or something like that.

Our constitution? They've got that thing hanging from a nail in the shithouse.

lol. americans don’t do shit

that's just another American Value, naming bills as sarcastically and ironcally as possible

And written by a Democrat.

They are literally never your ally. A lot of us refuse to accept that we have 2 parties that don't give one solitary fuck about us because it means we have no say whatsoever in our government, but Democrats prove time and time again that this is the case.

The most we get are a handful of "representatives" that somehow managed to beat AIPAC and all the corporate interests that buy the rest of them, but that handful isn't enough to actually force meaningful change or to prevent the worst from happening. :(

They're bought and paid for by basically all the big industries just like the GOP.

I don't think they think they're an opposition party, and they certainly wouldn't oppose mass surveillance. They never have.

Meta is pushing this because their platforms are overrun by bots. Ironically because partly of the AI tools they have created. And advertisers have caught up and aren’t willing to pay top dollars anymore on Meta’s platforms. Hence why Meta desperately wants a way to proof that their traffic comes from real people.

I would argue it does not directly or obviously impact device ownership. However, to the best of my knowledge, it would be the first time that the US Government has publicly required a specific set of features for consumer software.

To make matters worse, this is an Operating System level requirement, which means it has more permissions than any other piece of software you run. Every device you run today has an Operating System of some kind, so this bill could impact all devices.

So, I think the conclusion that you no longer own the device stems from the fact that it has software on it doing things and collecting information you did not approve. For normal people, there will be no way to avoid it. Tech savvy users will of course find ways to dodge it unless there are enforcement mechanisms and penalties that are sufficiently punitive.

Definitely not a path we should be going down if we actually cared about freedom, much less privacy. Not to mention, this opens up the whole “slippery slope” argument for more direct government control over software.

If you don't control it, you don't really own it. Modern cars can be remotely disabled on the whim of the car maker. Is it really YOUR car if someone else can cripple it or completely disable it without your permission?
It's already the case with your phone if you use OEM OS: manufacturers can do pretty much whatever they want remotely.
Now it's the turn of the computers: either it has a "compliant OS" (remotely controllable by 3rd party), or you will be cut off a growing part of basic use.

These companies made parental controls abysmal to use, so they can count children's traffic as adult viewers for ad revenue(on both sides of the bill).