You don't even know what I said.

You know you want to argue.

All you did is ponder, "He sounds like he's on the Other Side, he must believe all those wrong straw men I already knocked down! I know what to do!"

You're not even a thinking creature. You're just responding by mimicking.

You weren't even smart enough to choose a non-agitprop username, Ivan.

Nothing that Texas is doing will change where their electoral votes go, though.

It's against the law for sites to request the data when not required by law to do age verification.

If we're talking about social media apps, they get everything by having your device ID and contacts list. They know exactly who you are and what your real age is.

If we're talking about porn sites, the only way they'd ever see a transition of age category is if you're trying to use the site every day before you're allowed and being rejected, then finally on your 18th birthday it lets you.

It seems more likely that the kid was rejected by the site, asked their friends what to do, and was told the re-install their OS and claim to be old enough.

Same for gambling, etc.

It violates the law to request the age signal when you're not required to by law, so for most sites blocking users for not having it would be a big red flag that they're in violation.

So "a lot of sites" still mostly means porn sites.

There is nothing in the law that prevents open source browsers from providing the signal api.

It doesn't really matter. The base Android OS isn't covered, but that doesn't matter for most users because the developer entity that actually compiled the device's OS is either the hardware manufacturer or the service provider, and the user isn't permitted to modify and redistribute the images provided to them.

The law does not contain any such language, things like Redhat Linux and SteamOS are fine. (Though steam's client app would be covered as an app store)

The actual language it uses is:

It doesn't say anything about the GPL, license compliance, or that the license terms may not have restrictions.

"Most sites" have no reason to do age verification.

It's obvious that people are arguing about this without actually saying what their personal interest is.

Are this many people afraid they won't be able to get their discord porn channels because mom won't let them borrow her credit card?

The non-porn situations all involve privacy-raping social media that already knows more about their users than the users know about themselves.

"The gubermint is going to find out I exist!" doesn't seem like an honest argument to me. What are people really worried about? And why do them perceive there being value in arguing about it dishonestly?

If it's just an anonymous age flag, why can't open source clients just include support for it, even if they're not required to be this law? If they can verify it, it's something beyond an age flag, and I'll be happy to be left out and "blocked." Like sites that don't work with ad-blockers. So? Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. "But we might be left out of the next round of enshitification!" OK? This is bad why?

"I did something different than what the instructions said, because it seemed obvious!"

Imagine the disaster if they had actually tried to do it your way...

According to the Administrative Procedures Act, just because the President is in charge of appointing the people who make the decision doesn't mean he can instantly change anything. There's a whole rulemaking process that is supposed to happen first.

Who EVER cared about Dr. Dre?

According the summary, they know they were caught by the spam filter, but then they pretend not to know why so that they can abuse various administrative processes...

All these people acting like they're fighting for world peace on this should ask themselves, what effect does it have on that bureaucracy to post abuse the processes with dishonest claims? Even if you like the person and think it's a great app, it was clearly spam. Self-promotion is one of the form spam takes. Everybody defending him already knew that. Why does there need to be a "what else?" If people think reddit is too strict on their anti-spam policy, they should just be honest and say so!

Also I could point out that most of the penis pill spams from days of yore were also "self promotion" by a small business.

Spamming should be a capital offense. There was a time when that was not a controversial thing to say on slashdot.

So instead of banning all spamming, you want them to carefully weigh each spam, and permit things you approve of?

Kyoko-chan, are you sure you really thought about that first?

I heard it was the new slashdot.

I also heard the place sucks.

I'm glad they're finally taking a stand against spam, though... their user will probably appreciate it.

None of the laws cited contain any language about not being able to ban spammers, or self-promotion being a protected form of spam.