During incognito browser mode. So that's fun. As usual we found out as part of a lawsuit and settlement.

>"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.

Back in the '80s which kept the economy going and then we followed that with two huge economic bubbles that kept things going. There was also a lot more government assistance back then in a lot of ways that we don't think about. I'm not talking about food stamps I'm talking about heavy duty subsidies like the aforementioned infrastructure spending that made it easier to get jobs.

We were in a much better position to weather 12 years of Republican rule back then. The Republicans have been building up to this for 60 years, ever since Goldwater lost. Trump is the final form of the party. A pedophile pretending to be godly while openly admitting he will burn in hell and still somehow tremendously popular with the party.

It's not just about how terrible Trump is it's about how voters would let somebody like that have that much power. It's a sign that our civilization is near collapse. A fundamental breakdown in the institutions that have been protecting all of us for our entire lives.

I think a hog in a trough would work.

It's the opposite. People here have mostly done okay for themselves. Most of us are well over 50 and we got the full benefit of the Great society and the New deal. For example the government paid for 70% of our college tuition.

I don't think anyone here believes that they are going to ever suffer any serious hardship. And that's why we have so many Trump supporters here. They keep quiet because this isn't a safe space and Trump supporters won't talk about it if they're not in a safe space. But I know they are there.

These are the same people that are learning the kind of terms typically associated with libertarians right now.

They always think they will get off scot-free and maybe some of them will. But the point is not all of them will.

>"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.

I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said that quantity has its own quality (in regards to the T-34 tank).

Like the T-34, these enshittified tech products leave a trail of destroyed industries, collapsed societies, and scorched earth.

def Religion: A large popular cult
def Cult: A small unpopular religion

>"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.

To fix the problems Republicans inevitably cause with their trickled down lies and idiot moral panics.

We didn't get that this time. And we've had 60 years of right wingers sabotaging the economy.

The coming crash is going to be brutal and I don't think we can do anything about it.

The only possible fix would be to give the Democrats a super majority in the Senate during the midterm elections so they could completely undo and course correct decades of economic mismanagement and sabotage from Republican rule.

There is no way you can get people to understand that or to prevents distraction from whichever moral panic fits their fancy the most.

By 2028 many of the people here reading this will be homeless. Some of you might at least have a roof over your head if family takes you in. Good luck. It is as has been in America for decades now every man for himself. And we will continue to worship at the altar of I got mine fuck you

I do agree that incentives (and dis-incentives) are typically superior to other forms of regulation.

For example, a higher property tax for unoccupied buildings (or a tax break based on occupancy) might help get things moving.

Though, in the case of commercial property, that might not be enough. A root cause is Bank officers handing out loans like candy and basing the value of the collateral property on "anticipated rent". The owners are now afraid lowering the rent will trigger a re-valuation and the bank demanding repayment or starting foreclosure. Meanwhile, those officers know of the situation but don't want to rock the boat until they can get promoted far enough away not to have it come back on them , or better, make it to retirement first.

In truth, forced re-valuation is most likely the only way to break that log-jam at this point. The market isn't going to grow enough to actually make those turkeys rentable at current asking.

For residential, a grace period on some of those rennovations in exchange for actual occupancy may help.

So the CIA doesn't really work anymore. After 70 years people have gotten wise to their tricks. There were multiple efforts to depose South American heads of state that were less than perfect for the CIA and American interests (and by American interests I mean American corporate interests, not your interests). Those attempts failed.

That's why we're getting ready to go to war with Venezuela so we can take the oil and so Trump can distract from the Epstein files. In the old days we could easily depose a weak dictator like Maduro. The fact that we can't and that we have failed after two or three attempts is a sign of massive changes in foreign policy and what works and what doesn't.

I’m not angry. I’m pointing out you were pompous, and I feel no compunction to be polite about it. And you’ve now said that the reason you complained about me talking about my situation instead of talking systemically is because of your personal situation, which you bang on and on about, proving that you have absolutely no problem with talking about EVs in relation to personal situations so long as it’s *your* personal situation, which you want to whine about. So now I’m calling you a steaming great hypocrite too.

Also, your reading comprehension sucks. I said “70% of UK cars are parked off-street overnight”. Off-street means on a driveway or in a garage. It’s the literal exact opposite of being parked “out in the street”.

I don’t know how you can struggle so much with basic stuff: you said “A majority of people can not charge at 'home'.” That is the fake fact. A majority of people can, in fact, charge at home, in both the UK and the US. *You* are in the minority, not me.

As for what was pompous, I told you up above, and I’ll repeat it here: “Perhaps you should take that into consideration when you are doing evaluations on other people's actions” absolutely reeks of pomposity, from the “Perhaps” to the “take that into consideration” to the “doing evaluations [sic] on other people’s [sic] actions”.

It’s the last bit that’s the chef’s kiss of pompous misreading for me, because, my reply was not an “evaluation” of the OP’s “actions”, it was a question to try to understand what they meant by “4 hour turn around”, with a couple of examples of how I charge so that they could see if that was the same or different from what they meant by that phrase.

This isn't like when the buggy whip workers could go work for the car companies. There's nothing replacing the jobs being eliminated. Sit down and try to make a list of them. You can't. This is pure automation. It's causing raw technological unemployment.

And we better figure out something because 25% is the magic number.

That's the unemployment rate that preceded both world wars.