>"12345" topping their list while "123456" dominates among everyone else.

Not a SINGLE system I use, and I use a LOT of systems, would allow such a stupid password. Granted, there are also tons of systems that go extreme in the other direction with requiring FAR too complex (which is also incredibly stupid). And the stupidest of all is password aging.

A reasonable password, coupled with rate limiting and lockouts, is very secure. It will not be broken by brute force on the "outside" of properly-configured systems.

>"I just had trouble looking at a comment on one of my posts yesterday because I can't get through the Cloudflare bot detector."

I had the same problem yesterday and this morning. I could not open any direct links to postings. Period.

Ironic because I recently posted on Slashdot about how dangerous it is that all these sites are handing over their accessibility to a single huge company like Cloudflare, and complaining that Slashdot was throwing bot checks against me all the time in the last few weeks (which it had never done before).

>"Ban the collection of these types of information about individuals beyond what is necessary for performing a service -and ban keeping any collected data longer than is necessary for performing the specific service. No database = no database searches."

+100.

My issue is that I don't believe they will abide by any data collection retention limitations, use limitations, or other limitations; regardless of the rules/law. Especially if the three-letter agencies have a tie-in, they will do whatever they want. The only real way to prevent abuse is to not have those in use at all.

I really think this is a losing battle. People will almost always give up liberty and privacy for safety and convenience.

>"I just bought a new Ford Maverick for my business. It came with built in cellular data hardware -not optional. They say it is for diagnostics, updates, maps, and wifi-hotspot. It comes with the 1st year of data connectivity included. They want me to pay for additional years (no thanks!)"

^^ This
I bought a new Ariya earlier this year. All the hardware is already there. 3 years of service included, then you have to pay. You can opt out of data collection, and if you do, you lose half the "connected" features.

>"Just an acknowledgement that there is more money to be made serving the rich."

Oh, there certainly is more money to be made there. But with far less volume. Most companies will try to have products of all ranges to cover all the market. That is true for most car manufacturers as well.

>"He's pointing out the obvious that there are lots of important issues and that isn't one of them."

It isn't terribly important to you or him (apparently). And it isn't all that important to me, either. But to many, it is very important.

>"Its being used to distract from those more important issues. Just as it is here."

His bringing it up here *is* a distraction. I am interested in the conversation about vehicle sales...

>"Yes. Why else do you Chinese cars are outright banned in this country? Plenty of people on Youtube drive these cars and yes they are better quality and literally half the price. Domestic auto makers are scared shitless."

Oh, I don't doubt that the banning of Chinese cars is protectionism but also security related. We aren't banning Korean or Japanese cars... or cars from anywhere else. Just China. More than one thing can be true at the same time.

I honestly don't know if the Chinese car ban is a net/overall good or bad. I can see both sides of the arguments are valid and neither seems substantially better than the other.

>"I'd say the biggest factor discouraging parents from being more involved in their kid's lives is time"

As far a devices, I think it is mostly just lack of awareness and available tools. I would like to see awareness rise a LOT and tools become more visual and available. A parent shouldn't need to know a whole lot of "tech" to get an appropriate device for their child. When they get a phone/tablet/whatever, it should ask if this is going to be used by a minor and walk the parent through setting up remote controls by their account and whitelisting/restrictions.

>"If they had the slightest fear of competition then they wouldn't take that risk because a competitor might work their way up in the cheaper markets and then jump into the more profitable ones"

There are many manufacturers that sell all kinds of vehicles in the USA. Some made completely abroad from various different countries. Some domestically. And a lot are a complex mixture of the two. But you think there is a grand conspiracy/collusion among them all of them to deprive consumers of lower-priced/lower-end models?

>" but since we don't enforce antitrust law because we're busy freaking out about trans girls playing field hockey in the Midwest you can kiss that goodbye."

1) Do you seriously think that having concern about "trans sports" is preventing antitrust enforcement? That is quite an assertion, and a ridiculous one at that.
2) They are not "trans girls" playing, they are males. And they have many or most (if not all, in many cases) of the sports advantages of males, and it greatly diminishes the value of female sports competition.
3) It is far from just "field hockey in the Midwest", it has been across all kinds, ages, and levels of sports, except where it is finally being stopped.

>"Yep, because itâ(TM)s not just EV itâ(TM)s also gas vehicles [cnbc.com]. The average went from 30k in 2012 to 48k in 2022 and they arenâ(TM)t coming down much because of greedflation."

Part of that is due to the inclusion of ever more and more features and safety equipment. Even the lowest-end vehicles, regardless of propulsion method, are packed with stuff that used to be seen only on higher-end models. Another part is that vehicles kept getting bigger and bigger. For example, look at the Civic, it is bigger than the Accord used to be.

Also, you need to adjust the prices for inflation or they are meaningless for comparisons. $30k in 2012 is now $42.4k. (I wish my salary were also adjusted accordingly).

>"Woohoo! And, how well do 'public service announcements' help with girls in high school or before getting pregnant? Same for smoking."

The service is targeted at adults, not minors. We know they are not effective on minors. Minors have poor judgement, focus, reasoning, wisdom, etc. Which is why they shouldn't be accessing the internet on unrestricted devices.

>"Maybe not give the kid an $800 cellphone... give'em a flip phone [...]"

Or a $200 phone/tablet, but with appropriate parental controls and whitelisting enabled/enforced.

>"What undue burden? most social media isn't even readable now without creating an account for each platform. As part of their required account creation they can add a verification feature."

Creating an account is one thing for them, and quite easy. Trying to validate actual identity/age for every user is a whole other complicated and expensive process. I run a web forum. Is that "social media"? I wouldn't begin to know how to "verify" people (and certainly would never try to).

>"they [social media companies] brought this on themselves."

How so? Why are children using social media or browsing the open web or installing any apps they want or sending and getting nude photos to strangers? Answer: Because their parents/agents GAVE THEM that ability by giving them unrestricted devices. The parents/agents "brought this on" their own children.

>"If one wishes to play devil's advocate:
Because many parents don't do this. If the parents won't do a good job bringing up their kids, someone has to."

There are so many other more effective things that could be done. Some examples that pop into my mind:

1) Spend some money on public service education that it is NOT OK to give children unrestricted or unsupervised access to the internet.
2) Incentivize development of additional age-controls and whitelisting functionality ON DEVICES, under parental control
3) Foster development of VOLUNTARY flags on sites so locked-down devices can detect inappropriate content and add to filters.
4) Make it an actual crime for parents/agents to give devices to children that have unrestricted access to the internet.

Of those, I think #1 is the most important. We need to change the culture and norms to be that parents/agents should be responsible and restrict children's devices. They will then be shamed by others, and probably seek out tools, and hopefully the market will respond with more/better tools.

Personally, I think giving children unrestricted/unsupervised access to the internet is child abuse, or at least child endangerment. Both of which are already ILLEGAL.

>"Sounds to me like Virginia is trying to give parents tools to enforce their decisions."

No it is not. It is usurping parents' abilities and at the expense of ALL adults while not actually protecting children. Parental controls need to be on the devices children use, not on all sites that any person of any age with any device might visit.

"Social Media" isn't even defined in the bill/law. There are going to be many MILLIONS of inappropriate sites that children will STILL be able to access that are totally inappropriate. And that is in addition to being able to get/send texts/calls/photos to just anyone they want. That is why the only REAL controls are those on the actual devices they have access to. Responsible parents do not give unrestricted, internet-connect devices to their children and then walk away, hoping that the internet will somehow do the protecting.

>"NetChoice is suing Virginia to block a new law that limits kids under 16 to one hour of daily social media use unless parents approve more time, arguing the rule violates the First Amendment and introduces serious privacy risks through mandatory age-verification."

I hope NetChoice wins. These laws popping up in various states absolute put ridiculous burdens on "social media" when that responsibility should be on the parents. And those burdens will DESTROY privacy of everyone, most importantly adults. We should not have to supply PROOF POSITIVE of our identities to use websites. And that is exactly what most of these laws indirectly require.

You can hand-wave and try to invent in your mind some type of "age only" verification, third-party, trust whatever that acts as a middle-man. It is already too late. And I doubt it would actually be trust-worthy.

And have you read the bill? It doesn't even DEFINE what "social media" is. The only part of the bill I agree with is this:

"For purposes of this section, any controller or processor that operates a social media platform shall treat a user as a minor if the user's device communicates or signals that the user is or shall be treated as a minor"

In most cases, that shouldn't be needed, since children should be using locked devices that access only white-listed-sites/apps. Still, it could be useful for older children, where some sites could be appropriate if they have specific age-related/sensitive controls. Plus any voluntary tools to help parents control children's devices, I support.

Right now, it is a stupid check box I have to keep clicking. Just started maybe a week ago. And it is nearly every time I click on anything Slashdot, if I have a gap of time inbetween. Sometimes even a few minutes. It is very annoying.