Login
You're viewing the front-end.social public feed.
  • Christine Lemmer-Webbercwebber@social.coop
    Apr 15, 2026, 12:00 PM

    If *I* were an investigative journalist, this is a piece I'd be pouring a lot of energy into. I know we have a few investigative journalists on here... maybe someone wants to take it up?

    💬 11🔄 61⭐ 112

Replies

  • Duncan Bayneduncan_bayne@bsd.cafe
    Apr 15, 2026, 12:04 PM

    @cwebber It may just be old fashioned authoritarianism too, I guess. Very convenient for politicians if all online speech can be tied back to individuals through official ID.

    💬 4🔄 3⭐ 19
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 12
  • Duncan Bayneduncan_bayne@bsd.cafe
    Apr 15, 2026, 12:08 PM

    @chantaryu2 @cwebber Oh yeah. Meta and others are definitely involved. But it might not be cash changing hands, just the possibility of universal surveillance.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 5
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 11
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 2⭐ 3
  • 💬 1🔄 2⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 1
  • Taggart :ifin:mttaggart@infosec.exchange
    Apr 15, 2026, 1:36 PM

    @cwebber FWIW, the California legislation was opposed by big tech's lobbying firms. IMO what we have here is a fundamental disconnect between technical people and non-technical people in understanding how to address a perceived issue (the internet is scary for kids). Polling consistently shows broad support for this issue, which is in part why this is a bipartisan bill.

    I'm not agreeing with it; I'm just saying the motivations might not be from Big Tech itself.

    💬 4🔄 1⭐ 11
  • Snowsnow@teardrop.net
    Apr 15, 2026, 2:51 PM

    @mttaggart @cwebber
    > the California legislation was opposed by big tech's lobbying firms.
    Do you have any sources for this? Everything I have read indicates it was passed with their support, but in arguing about this bill with people in state offices one of them made the same claim.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 4
  • Taggart :ifin:mttaggart@infosec.exchange
    Apr 15, 2026, 2:53 PM

    @snow @cwebber I do in fact. Go check my blog for links to the legislation at all stages. Official groups in opposition were almost exclusively TechNet, which is a lobbying firm funded by the biggest tech corporations. A second group in opposition was led by a former Google lobbyist.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 2
  • Snowsnow@teardrop.net
    Apr 15, 2026, 2:58 PM

    @mttaggart @cwebber Thanks. I'm very confused then, because even Wicks office was touting the support of tech companies when the bill passed. Maybe it's a case of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I suppose it doesn't matter since these bills are dumpster fires regardless of who is supporting them.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Taggart :ifin:mttaggart@infosec.exchange
    Apr 15, 2026, 3:04 PM

    @snow @cwebber Money talks. It's one thing to put out a press release; it's another to pay a lobbying firm to go to work in Sacramento on your behalf. I really think what we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of motivation between legislators, the general public, and this community.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 3
  • Jonjdp23@neuromatch.social
    Apr 17, 2026, 5:03 PM

    Belated response here ...

    "I really think what we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of motivation between legislators, the general public, and this community."

    Totally agree. I've talked to quite a few state legislators here in Washington about it, including what they're hearing from the public -- some of those thoughts in neuromatch.social/@jdp23/11640

    Specifically on Google and AB 1043 they testified against AB 1043 in April but then actively supported it in September. It's possible they were just bowing to the inevitable ... r maybe there were changes that made it more palatable to them?

    In Washington in early 2026, TechNet, NetChoice, and Chamber of Progress all opposed the age verification bills (with the caveat that these bills weren't at the OS level so the incentives are somewhat different). It was very much a strange bedfellows situation; I heard that supporters of the age verification bill were saying that I and others who opposed it were in big tech's pocket (which is pretty hilarious).

    But, big tech isn't monolithic. Meta and MIcrosoft basically do their own thing, and I've heard for a while that Meta has been supporting OS and AppStore-level age verification bills. Oracle is a data broker as much as a big tech company (and data brokers support age verification bills). The Age Verification Providers association has a lot of lobbying muscle of their own. etc etc etc.

    @mttaggart @snow @cwebber

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Mark Shane Haydenmsh@coales.co
    Apr 15, 2026, 3:23 PM

    @mttaggart within big tech the opposition mostly came from Apple and Microsoft who would bear the most burden from adding AVS to their products. Meta and Google would actually stand to benefit because their business models heavily leverage the surveillance economy and they are well positioned to be in control of enforcement in the role of "AVS Service Providers"

    Furthermore, regulatory capture is the centrepiece of their business strategy, and the opposition to the California law was most likely not over the concept itself but the fact it was state-level, and capturing a patchwork or state regulations is more work than a single federal-level system.

    The main thing big tech wants is to make compliance extremely difficult for smaller and newer competition and to ensure that penalties for mishandling the collection, retention and maintenance of personal data remain solely monetary and small enough that they remain just another "cost of doing business".

    But yeah "mandated AVS" is Manufactured Consent
    @cwebber

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 1⭐ 2
  • Mark Shane Haydenmsh@coales.co
    Apr 15, 2026, 7:07 PM

    @mttaggart I admit it is all conjecture based on the track record of all the players involved so take that as you will. Certainly there will not be easily available, publicly accessible citations for such actions as they are always proprietary.

    Note that in the links you cite Apple both complied in advance and signed onto the lobby opposing the legislation. This certainly doesn't suggest a pricipled stance on either side of the issue. The track record of all of Big Tech suggests this would be the typical strategy if all of them.

    @cwebber

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Patrick Georgipatrick@retro.social
    Apr 16, 2026, 5:20 AM

    @mttaggart @cwebber Big tech is probably all in favor because the alternative (that's being drowned out by these age verification systems) is that big tech is on the hook. Along the lines of:

    - Hosters of user generated content are protected by section 230, the foundation of big tech's success in this age

    - Big tech is using algorithms to decide what to show whom, when.

    - That's an editorial decision (even if fully automated)

    - Is that editorial decision still covered by section 230? (probably not)

    That's bad for them for two reasons: 1. not shielded anymore against lawsuits over UGC, 2. dealing with that affects their reach into all demographics, not just kids.

    As such, it's better for them to get the "think of the children" folks off their backs with age verification rather than talking about how their systems poison the minds of everybody else, too.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • Fluffy Kitty Catfluffykittycat@furry.engineer
    Apr 16, 2026, 8:42 PM

    @mttaggart @cwebber the issue isn't "the internet is scary for kids" it's "kids having the internet is scary for people in power" it's threatening everything from their suppression of LGBT youth to their genocide in gaza

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Luka Rubinjonirubinjoni@mastodon.social
    Apr 15, 2026, 2:33 PM

    @cwebber Yes. Also in the EU "age verification" is being surprisingly fast tracked. I'm amazed someone can pull such a vast coordinated effort in this day and age.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 5
  • Nininini@oldbytes.space
    Apr 15, 2026, 3:03 PM

    @rubinjoni @cwebber I'm not that amazed, a wealthy networked trust of people can pay for legislation and have done so in the past. It's the scale that's impressive and yes, democracy is sold for far cheaper than you'd expect or desire.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 7
  • Dianealienghic@timeloop.cafe
    Apr 15, 2026, 3:31 PM

    @cwebber

    Someone shared a youtube video that I lost track of that said the California age bill was proposed by Rep. Buffy Wicks

    trackbill.com/bill/california-

    Buffy Wicks had previously worked for Common Sense Media.

    commonsensemedia.org/bio/buffy

    Common Sense Media definitely likes these age gating laws.

    commonsensemedia.org/press-rel

    💬 1🔄 4⭐ 6
  • 💬 0🔄 4⭐ 6
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 4
  • KowKow@infosec.exchange
    Apr 15, 2026, 4:26 PM

    @cwebber tboteproject.com/

    It has been(still is being) investigated. From what I recall, Meta is the biggest spender. Makes sense why they suddenly want your OS to verify age. Meta will be able to collect more data and have to do no extra work around it.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 4
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0