Hello,

I am french, I have 2 kids, now 19 (still a kid?) and 17.

On one hand, I am 100% happy to see that law.

I see way to many people, including my kids (and wife) "suck in" endless scrolling, harassed using these systems.
Furthermore, I see how these systems are designed to "suck you in". And there is almost nothing you can do to fight it (except not go there). Education, training will NOT help you win against these systems who are run by professionals, using psychiatrist, endless A/B testing and resources. If you go on these networks, they will suck more and more of your time, energy, turn you into "human batteries" (aka Matrix) to feed themselves.

On the other side,
- They can also be great tools, blocking access to them can deprive kids from great opportunity. My 17 YO has been running a youtube channel for 3 years now (so, since she was 14), has over 50K subscribers (!) and is using it to bolster her "business" selling hand crafted masks. She has learned so much about so many things through this that it would have been a waste to not let her do it!
- Mandatory age verification will be an imposition on all of us and reduce liberties for everyone
- These are the tools of the area and kids will need to learn how to use them. Blocking them from doing so will render them less effective later.

At the end I think that what should have hapend is that the law should have required these companies to stop being so agressive in trying to lock and keep people in, and also have some good mechanism for controlling "bad speach" (as a self repost?).... The lawmakers look at it, but it was judged unconstitutional and so they went with age verification.

Cyrille

We should have worked with that nice Mr Hitler and taken advantage of his sources of cheap labour and gold.

Yeah, basic human rights are highly overrated, America should just stop worrying about them.

I"m curious...do these Chinese models contain Chinese guard rails?

I mean, will it censor you if you ask about the Chinese premier looking like Winnie the Pooh or tienaman (sp?) square....will it say it can't answer that...or give answers that only praise china?

Genuine question with potential genuine concerns....

Bingo. As Europe becomes more Muslim, more areas will ban eating bacon and drinking alcohol.

Actually you misunderstood or misrepresented the stats. Your link is a confusing paraphrasing of different sites with the actual data. If you follow the footnotes back you'll find out that the US building 2 coal plants, and temporarily reactivating 2 others. In contrast China is building many new coal plants, at the direction of the President Xi. US industry continues a 70 year trend of moving away from coal. Unlike China which continues to use coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it. The west leans toward using the least polluting fossil fuels, ex Natural Gas, China prefers to use to lower cost fossil fuels, which is coal.

"[2026 March 26] Despite being a renewables superpower, China continues to permit and build new coal-fired power plants at a rapid pace. Analysts say the nation’s new five-year plan will ensure further coal plant expansion and jeopardize China’s ability to deliver on its climate promises.

The 15th Five-Year Plan offered a chance to correct these negative trends and get China’s climate ambitions back on track, but it is an opportunity the government appears to have missed ... Instead, they changed the way they calculate energy intensity, perhaps to disguise the failure to meet Xi’s target, and set a looser ambition for the next five years. "

https://e360.yale.edu/features...

"[2026 Feb 10] Despite media and other reports that China is into “green energy,” the country is still using coal to power its economy, with about 80 to 100 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity added in 2025.
The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2024, with fossil fuels accounting for a whopping 88%.
Coal also provided 58% of China’s electricity generation in 2024.
While a report by Ember indicates that populous developing countries like China and India “led the charge in adding more renewable energies” in the first half of 2025, their generation shares show that coal is still king in these countries, and their coal-fired capacity additions indicate that coal will continue to power their economies for the foreseeable future.

The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2024. Oil was at 20% and natural gas at 10%. That means that 88% of China’s energy came from fossil fuels. Carbon-free energy (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and most other renewables) only provided 12%. Since 2000, China has more than tripled its coal consumption and now uses more coal than the rest of the world’s combined usage, burning 56% of the world’s coal. As Doomberg points out, China consumes almost 20 times the combined consumption of coal by the 27 member states of the European Union, based on 2024 data.

"In 2024, China released 11,173 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — 31.5% of the world’s total. That was about 4.5 times as much as the European Union and almost 2.5 times the amount that the United States released.

China produced 57.8% of its electricity from coal and 33.7% from renewables and hydropower. It is unlikely that China has since switched those numbers so radically when it expanded the capacity of coal-fired plants more in the first half of 2025 than at any time in the past nine years, according to DW. It did so by adding between 80 and 100 gigawatts of new coal power to its grid in 2025, with 21 gigawatts of those gigawatts added in the first half of 2025

The reason that China and India will not divest themselves of coal is that they need affordable and reliable power for their industries and for their residents. With the advent of artificial intelligence data centers that are energy hungry, China will be relying on its vast coal-fired grid — larger than all the generating capacity in the United States — to lead the race. It also needs coal capacity to process the rare earth and other critical minerals that the world needs for “green” technologies."

https://www.instituteforenergy...

"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""

https://www.statista.com/stati...

They snatch civilian men from the streets and throw them into the battle zone to meet their death, and they still have the audacity to talk about winning

But the customer pays for tarriffs, right? So if the business paid for an illegal tariff, and passed it down the chain, shouldn't their customer get the refund?

If not, why not pass a law saying so?

This could fund the stimulus/grant/tax refund that Trump wants to give common folk

So we're back to blaming voters for everything. As if we really had a say in how things were going to run. It's not the monyed elite buying public perception with ads or the news media/entertainment industry's fault for manipulating us. No, it's the voters fault for being manipulated.

The whole point of democracy is so we can blame the voters while the rich continue to control the government. Much as it's always been.

I mean, most everyone's mad at Trump over implementing these tariffs (and rightfully so, IMO, if only because of how haphazardly it was implemented). But now, you've got companies demanding a refund when it was mostly the consumer who really paid them. (I didn't see many places eating the cost of the tariffs and holding prices where they were? If that had happened, the typical consumer wouldn't have cared so much about them.)

Knowing these companies have no plans to cut prices, it makes it sort of accurate for Trump to praise the ones who won't try to claw back the money. At least as additional revenue to the U.S. government, it technically goes towards servicing the national debt as opposed to tax increases.

I read that. I think it's an unconfirmed, second hand account from a professor who worked with one of trump professors, who said it and is now deceased. Still, I have absolutely zero doubts that both the statement and assertion are true. I believe the phrase "lacks intellectual curiosity" was also mentioned, either there or elsewhere - also totally believable. The fact that Trump has gotten so far and so much boggles the mind. It helped that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth -- which must have been hard on his mother. (to quote some comedian) :-)

It just seems chaotic and unfair.