• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    29 days ago

    Opposing it has no practical effect other than helping strengthen big tech’s argument that the onus shouldn’t be on them to ensure their platforms are safe to use.

    Isn’t that the whole point of these laws though? They were lobbied for and written by Meta afaik, with the likely purpose being to reduce their legal liability.

    • Zagorath@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      Yeah, cos the alternative is having to trust Facebook with even more sensitive data. I don’t want to do that. They don’t want that. It is possible for interests to align even between two groups that otherwise rarely agree.

      I’ll give another example of that. In Australia, the Greens are the main party for progressives. Unfortunately they rarely hold very much power compared to the centrist Labor and far-right Liberal National Coalition, but they do exist and have a few seats in Parliament.

      In my state, there is currently a petition being circulated to ban advertising of gambling in government-owned assets. It is being supported primarily by two groups: the progressive Greens party, and the extremely socially conservative Christian lobby. I can’t think of a single other issue right now where these two would agree, but they’ll work together because they do agree on this issue.

      I’m happy to agree with Facebook that age verification belongs locally, not via sketchy third-parties who then have to hold on to sensitive data and hope they don’t get hacked. And not by uploading sensitive data directly to social media or porn sites who have no business holding on to my photo ID.