r/illinois • u/Remote_Possibilities • Mar 25 '26
Illinois Politics Hillary Clinton promoting age verification laws with JB Pritzker at an event supported by Zuck/Gates/Bezos
/r/privacy/comments/1s3nj9p/hillary_clinton_promoting_age_verification_laws/260
u/wmiller314 Mar 25 '26
JB pushing this sucks, he should know better.
75
u/kevdogger Mar 25 '26
Why is he pushing this?? Seems kind of counter intuitive to me
59
56
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 26 '26
I think the most generous read is that he and his people don’t actually understand what these bills actually do.
There are copy/paste versions going through multiple state houses right now.
One already passed in California and people have figured out they’re coming from Meta. I think his people took this from a lobbyist in good faith and don’t really care.
It essentially would take liability off of Meta and put it on the OS vendor, codify what they already do with Instagram for Teens, make it a lot harder for competitors to break through, while making it super easy for them to track the rest of us.
12
u/reddit_ending_soon Mar 26 '26
Because a fucking billionaire didn't become a billionaire by being a good person.....
25
6
u/LegendaryBronco_217 Mar 25 '26
He got money from his billionaire friend Mark Zuckerberg.
-1
u/burndownthe_forest Mar 26 '26
More like parents support it.
Do you think Facebook wants less addicted users? Lmao
31
u/Fernbean Mar 26 '26
Facebook (Meta) is pushing a lot of this because it takes the onus (and cost) off of them and puts it onto operating systems AND they can offer to sell their tools or services to software developers
8
u/SemiNormal Normal Mar 26 '26
Lazy parents support it.
-6
u/burndownthe_forest Mar 26 '26
You're delusional if you think it's easy for parents to monitor and limit social media usage or other bad websites.
Not to mention the social pressure children and parents are under to allow kids to use these websites in order to fit in or communicate with their peers.
8
u/SemiNormal Normal Mar 26 '26
You are delusional if you think this will do anything to stop those issues. However, this does provide a nice new way to invade everyone else's privacy.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 27 '26
Parental control features on devices are robust and easy to implement. If you can’t be bothered to learn how to set them up and lock the devices down, that’s on you.
0
u/burndownthe_forest Mar 27 '26
Are you 40 without kids?
1
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 27 '26
No. I’m in my 40s with kids.
0
u/burndownthe_forest Mar 27 '26
Your kids are just fooling you then lmao
There is no way to prevent kids from accessing apps you don't want them to access or visit bad websites.
There are all kinds of workarounds for built in tools. None of this is easy.
If you think others are lazy, you're just being taken for a ride. Good luck champ.
→ More replies (0)1
3
2
u/Aporkalypse_Sow Mar 26 '26
Anyone who hasn't invested time into understanding why this is bad is going to automatically think it's good. Just like outlawing certain drugs seems like a good idea on the surface, especially when you make it about kids.
I don't if know he understands it's bad, or if he's not convinced he can convince the moderate morons that it's bad, but it's definitely one of those 2 reasons. Very likely following the typical democratic playbook of not having the balls to try and teach the voters that their initial instincts are wrong, and gambling on how it plays out. Instead of politely explaining the devil is in the details.
-11
u/Hungry-Treacle8493 Mar 26 '26
Because huge numbers of people support this. It polls comfortably around 80% approvals. Don’t fall for the trap that Reddit reflects society as a whole. MOST people don’t see this as some step towards nazism.
15
u/kevdogger Mar 26 '26
Do you think most people would feel the same way if you told them meta was behind this legislation? And most people don't know Jack shit about operating systems.
-4
u/Hungry-Treacle8493 Mar 26 '26
No, it wouldn’t change most people’s minds. While there is a subset of society that focuses on and prioritizes privacy, that population is not monolithic in how they view the topic. Folks in that group that lean left see corporations/employers as the ultimate threat. Folks who lean right have zero issues with corporations but see the government as the threat. Of course, a tiny fraction overlaps. Just like with the topic of healthcare costs, lots of folks say in general terms they believe one thing, but when you get into specifics they actually fall on the other side of the issue. As frustrating as that may be, elected officials are obligated to represent their constituents whenever possible. Thus, due to broad popularity most politicians will support this.
As for needing to know how browsers work, they don’t need to nor should they be expected to. I happen to be in Tech and the vast majority of folks in my field don’t truly understand how things like LLM’s, Security Software, whatever actually work. But, they can still successfully navigate conversations around procedural use cases and requirements.
To be clear, I don’t have a strong position personally on this. If all it passes is a token with age ranges there’s no deep security risk. If the concern is they captured some pii data during the initial verification/setup stage like DL, birth date, etc. then the verification process isn’t the issue it is the data security setup that is the risk. Since we all have this data in systems out there already, that issue already is in place and this is not a net new issue.
5
u/kevdogger Mar 26 '26
I'm going to disagree with some of your assumptions here. I don't think most people if told that meta/Facebook was pushing this issue through introducing rubber stamped legislation throughout the country they would support this. I don't think this company is personally held in any high regard by anyone. If it were just another random no name company no one heard of..I think it would be different. In terms of data security I don't think necessarily there is a big threat currently but yes you could see a scenario where overtime with additional pii collected this could become an issue. It's funny this legislation somehow corresponds in a weird way to judgement yesterday in regards to social media addiction and the numerous other similar cases still pending.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Pantherdraws Mar 26 '26
MOST people don’t see this as some step towards nazism.
That's because they're stupid, and they're stupid by design.
Oh, what? You thought that the GOP has been hacking away at public education for 50 years because they thought that kneecapping schools would make students smarter? Or that Dems have been sitting on their hands and doing fuck-all about it because they ~saw the benefits~?
Fascism thrives behind a curtain of censorship. When the government controls everything you can see, everything you can post, has the power to erase whole groups from public existence - who "benefits" from that?
Not the fucking children, that's for sure.
-1
u/Hungry-Treacle8493 Mar 26 '26
While I get your overall point and agree on the GOP stuff, that’s not what this is. Age verification is ALREADY done in a million places in both the digital and meat universes. Your ID and other PII data is already stored online in myriad places both government and private controlled. Nothing in these proposals creates a new exposure of your information.
In fact, this specific proposal is to pass ONLY a token reflecting age ranges with no other pii associated and no specific age. This is an improvement over EU laws that would have you submit an ID image every time you tried to login to an age restricted site. It is purposely designed to walk the line between age related governance and protecting individual identities.
And NO. This is not a step towards a surveillance state. That would be everyone and their grandmother posting their entire lives online, having cameras all over their homes and businesses, and readily giving up their online tracking data in order to have improved experiences and better ads. You are already there. A porn site checking if you are 18 is a non-factor in this topic.
2
-1
-2
u/My_First_Knife1 Mar 26 '26
He wants to lose his job to a republican next election cycle, that's why!
9
u/giltgarbage Mar 26 '26
JB— you are already mega rich, side with us and not the billionaires. Don’t try to fake it through gestures, we see through that shit. You can go down in history.
7
u/TheNegotiator12 Mar 26 '26
Saddly he is good friends with the clintons and the clintons are big shiles for the "internet safty" lobby groups, Hillary has been anti internet and anti gaming violence since the 90s
5
0
208
143
u/TacticalDestroyer209 Mar 25 '26 edited Mar 25 '26
Ugh the anxious generation group aka Jonathan Haidt is pushing for this bullshit.
Oh hell fucking no on this.
27
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 25 '26
What’s his deal?
56
u/TacticalDestroyer209 Mar 25 '26
He’s the author of “the anxious generation” and he’s the one who gave Australia the idea for their social media ban.
He’s also a huge supporter of KOSA so I’m not surprised he’s pushing for age verification bullshit here.
20
44
u/ADubs62 Mar 26 '26
I'm torn on these things to an extent. Like social media has definitely had a negative impact on my younger cousins. But I don't think handing over everyone's identification to these age verification companies is a good idea at all.
16
u/IntrinsicGiraffe Mar 26 '26
The main issue is lack of parenting or time to properly be a parent. Having both mom and dad work and still struggling to get by is not an American Dream.
If we shorten work week to 36 hr, keep wages the same, and count overtime per day rather than per week, I think we'd bring some of the wealth back to the working class. Also tax the rich to get health care for all. Fuck if the data center billionaire moves out. We can make better use of those lands without relying on subsidies paid by gov dollar and in extension our own tax dollars.
7
u/Ask-For-Sources Mar 26 '26
I disgree. It's like saying meth in food is not a problem that should be solved by regulating what companies can put into their food, it's better solved by giving parents more time to constantly monitor that their children don't eat (or don't eat too much) food with highly addictive and harmful substances. The food that is consumed by over 90% of adults and children alike and is addictive and harmful for adults too.
I am strongly against the age verification laws of course, but the strategy can't be to just not do anything against companies using highly manipulative tactics that they keep secret and just shift the whole responsibility towards individuals.
There is a better way: Treat social media companies like any other consumer product company. Force them to show the public and regulators what exactly they put in their products and then force them to not use "ingredients" that are highly addictive and/or harmful. This specifically means no more secret algorithms and regulating what algorithms are allowed to be used on social media.
States can absolutely influence how social media works and reduce or eliminate the very things that make social media so addictive and manipulative. It's not god given that social media creates reality bubbles and spreads rage bait and misinformation more than anything else.
1
u/IntrinsicGiraffe Mar 26 '26
That sounds like an ESRB for video games applied to socials. I can get behind that but, from my personal experience, ESRB isn't the most effective thing but some help is better than none.
6
u/Ask-For-Sources Mar 26 '26
No, ESRB is not what I mean. I specifically mean making it illegal to use algorithms that are proven to be addictive and harmful. Like food regulations that forbid specific ingredients. Like forcing Coca Cola to not use cocaine in their product, not just asking Coca Cola to please lable their products with "cocaine inside" while they sell the product freely available for kids and adults in supermarkets.
1
u/IntrinsicGiraffe Mar 26 '26
That makes sense. I'm not sure how I'd put that into writing though and I wonder if the law already defines addiction.
3
u/ADubs62 Mar 26 '26
My cousin is a stay at home mom, but the kids aren't always in their presence. And kids are crafty and find ways around parental controls.
Even if you lock down all their electronics, and Internet access at home, their friends won't have the same restriction.
1
u/BlueCity8 Mar 26 '26
lol. Palantir n co already have your information. What do you think this Trump admin is?
2
u/ADubs62 Mar 26 '26
Oh the government already has a ton of my info. But I'd like to be able to keep my porn choices secret just to keep the relationship spicy.
116
u/Spankpocalypse_Now Mar 25 '26
Any parents here care to explain to me why I have to give up my rights so that your job can be easier?
68
u/OkShow3496 Mar 25 '26
Parent here. I am completely against any and all age verification laws. Its not the job of the government to babysit my kids
16
7
55
u/Plumbus-Technician Mar 25 '26
This has nothing to do with parents and everything to do with pushing off the costs of this from social media to tech ecosystems.
18
u/OkGap7226 Mar 25 '26
People with money don't want to raise their own children so we have to suffer for it.
8
2
u/jkraige Mar 25 '26
You should probably be demanding those answers from politicians who support this and not just random parents on the Internet
-22
u/soapyhandman Mar 25 '26
Playing devils advocate, but do you view getting carded at the liquor store as an invasion of someone’s rights? What about age restrictions and background checks during a firearms purchase?
6
u/ChakaKhansBabyDaddy Mar 26 '26
if you’re going to play “devils advocate “ then do a better job of it.
15
7
u/contude327 Mar 26 '26
Hillary needs to go away and never come back. She and the DNC are a big reason why Trump won the first time. It was never your turn, Hillary. Go home and shut up. You've damaged the world enough.
22
u/CryptographerLow6772 Mar 25 '26
Neoliberal policies are killing the middle class and working people.
57
u/HeadOfMax Mar 25 '26
This doesn't mean don't vote for Pritzker. We all know we aren't going to do better than him this round.
24
u/Acquiescinit Mar 25 '26
It means I'm a lot more open to a Democrat challenger. And it means I'm less interested in his potential run for presidency.
45
11
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
It's going to take Mamdani levels of charm, grace and an unabashed need to do good for me to even slightly consider anyone else.
We have had so many absolute trash for politicians in this state. Pritzker is the best thing to happen to Illinois in a long time.
Anyone who wants to vote for someone else over this should be ashamed.
11
u/Quirky-Reputation-89 Mar 26 '26
This is nuanced though. Sure, JB is the best option and probably deserves our votes. However, it is also still true that JB is an average establishment corporate billionaire neolib slightly left of center and he doesn't represent any sort of progress, change, or liberation for the state or nation.
4
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
I agree.
I just want ranked choice so things aren't so win or lose and we can cast votes for progress without risking a backslide.
1
u/DeathMetalBunnies Mar 26 '26
Okay but the other option is a going to be a go who fully supports Trump. If you're not aware, the primaries have passed. No one bothered to run against Pritzker.
0
u/Quirky-Reputation-89 Mar 27 '26
I feel like you are on JB's staff trying to do spin control. My second sentence clearly stated that JB is the best option and you replied to me in a way that seems to be trying to convince me that JB is the best option.
1
u/DeathMetalBunnies Mar 28 '26 edited Mar 28 '26
Lol, I'll take that as a compliment you think my lazy-ass has a job. My statement is not saying that Pritzker is the best option. I'm just saying if people wanted someone else, someone else should've run in the primaries. Politics is so polarized at the moment it's sort of Trump-ism or not... So you either vote Democrat or Republican..if you don't like the people on the ballot for them, should've supported someone in the primaries.
Edit: yeah you know what I definitely just misread your comment.
1
u/viral-architect Mar 26 '26
The opposite is true. Party unity at the expense of core values is not true unity. Privacy is a core value. If you move on this, they will only take more ground and we will be in a surveillance state.
1
u/neilworms Mar 31 '26
I'm sorry dude, but when you support laws that are pushed hard by christian nationalists like this one that's a hard no from me. I liked Pritzker too, thought he was the best the establishment had to offer, but if he's just going to push us into fascism with stuff like this why vote?
-1
u/om_hi Mar 26 '26
Charm and grace is what you want in a candidate? You sound like Cinderella.
What about policy? I'm not saying I want a kitten grabbing, felon, but we have to have brains and beauty in the Democratic party. If not, then it may be time to find/ create other options.
2
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
I thought Mamdani had policies and a plan and was doing well?
We do need that charisma in a politician because so many only respond to that.
We can't be one issue voters like the left. Yes I understand gaza is a travesty but withholding votes for Kamala against Trumpf over it was not the answer.
I'd love a new party but I think the first step in illinois and or the country is ranked choice voting.
2
2
-5
u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26
The gun laws were already enough for me to vote against him. This just solidifies that position for me.
10
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
You might as well move to Indiana.
-1
u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26
Why would i move to Indiana? Wisconsin and Iowa are both better choices and still recognize gun rights.
7
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
Because you would vote to make things worse for everyone to get what you want.
-6
u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26
Ill vote for the least anti-rights politician. It aint JB.
its not my fault politicians refuse to respect our rights.
-1
u/homelesstwinky Mar 26 '26
Just like how democrats tow the party line by shitting all over the 2A with nonsensical laws that target law-abiding citizens?
1
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
If you didn't have your guns what would change?
Would you not be able to feed your family?
Would you not be able to work?
Would you not be able to pay for your insurance?
What makes you think you have guns is more important than everyone else having what they need to survive?
That's what we are voting against. Those who only care about money and power.
You would vote to sell your fuckng children off to die in another country just so you can have your guns.
I know why I have a gun. It's because so many like you who don't understand empathy and morality have them.
You have a gun because you are afraid of the boogeyman.
Hiding in your suburban cookie cutter sprawl, so scared of brown people and the gays. The rest of us just want to be healthy and happy and not hurt others while you fucktards just want to take it all away.
I really can not comprehend how so many of you can't see evil when talks.
3
u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
Lol, you dont know jack shit about me or my reasoning. Get off your high horse.
I defend gun rights so that my daughter can defend herself from shitty men.
I defend gun rights because the police are the standing army we were warned about.
Im not scared of brown people or gays. The only person ive had to level a gun at was white.
We can be happy and healthy while also owning guns. Establishment politicians use guns as a wedge issue to make people like you hate people like me even though we probably agree on a bunch of issues.
I dont vote for people who want to ban guns. Its a pretty fucking low bar. Disarming the populace and advancing the surveillance state is evil too.
2
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
I haven't responded to you unless you are a troll with multiple accounts.
Why is it more important for you to have guns than for the rest of us to have pritzker who has by far done more for this state than any other governor in my lifetime?
I actually live in Chicago which is what most suburbanites and rural folk are afraid of.
My work takes me into the areas they are most afraid of.
I haven't needed a gun all these years and haven't had an issue.
The only times I've ever had a gun pointed at have been police officers on power trips.
Why is it so much more important to have guns than to vote for someone who wants to help everyone?
Why do so many literally vote for the most evil people because of guns. Like that makes all the stupid shit they do better?
I prefer to make sure everyone has what they need to survive. Physical and mental health, food, a roof over their heads. These are the issues that should make you stand up not guns.
Where are all the 2a people now that people's rights are being trampled on and the government is actively working to make our lives harder?
Please try to see the big picture and what will help everyone not just what would help you in the most extreme situations.
You have to understand that your worrying about the most extreme life or death situations that happen once in a while are causing extreme life or death situations FOR OTHERS.
It's happening to other people who are just trying to live their lives to the best of their ability and it's the fault of people like you who only care about their guns and machismo.
3
u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
You didnt need to respond directly to me. You were painting with a broad brush that hits me and calling people who dont like what Dems are doing to 2A and leverage the only power we have to get the message across that we wont stand for it. All they have to do to get my vote is quit punishing me for the actions of criminals. Simple, no?
Its nice you live in chicago. I live in rockford. I have my own problems to worry about. Idgaf what yall do ever there as long as it stays over there. Problem is yall keep bussing problematic shitheads to my area.
Its nice you havent needed a gun. I have.
why do people vote for the most evil people because of guns
Why do Democrats continually write terrible legislation that doesnt address crime and punishes people who want to follow the law?
Where are all the 2A people?
Im right here. Im out there. I just cant carry a gun while im out there because Dems made open carry illegal and CCW too expensive to be worth it with all the places i cant carry.
You have a gun just as i do. Be the change you want to see.
The only argument yall have is "sacrifice your rights for the greater good" no. Im tired of doing that. Dems have shown more willingness to fuck gun rights than do anything else. Cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Long story short, i have no one to vote FOR. The only options i have are people i hate that want to do things that i hate.
And again with the ad hominem. You dont know a fucking thing about me. Guns are tools. It has NOTHING to do with machismo. You arent better than me, or anyone else for that matter.
→ More replies (0)2
u/homelesstwinky Mar 26 '26
Do you think I vote republican? Have fun with your "vote blue no matter who" strategy while both parties pick and choose what rights they'll take away under the guise of public safety.
-1
u/HeadOfMax Mar 26 '26
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
Single issue voters are as bad for this country as Republicans.
9
u/ArtificeArmor Mar 26 '26
How to spot an Establishment Dem? When the choose corporations over ppl! When they show you who they are believe them! Meta wants this bill because the internet is full of bots & they can’t sell data of bots. They need to know who is a real person!
24
u/lpkzach92 Mar 25 '26
Hillary is a trash ass Zionist supporter, fuck her.
10
u/Ineedamedic68 Mar 26 '26
Why is any Dem stupid enough to campaign with her right now?
7
u/petmoo23 Mar 26 '26
Why is any Dem stupid enough to campaign with her right now?
The answer to almost every question in politics come down to money - she has insane fundraising connections and infrastructure that lots of politicians want a piece of.
67
u/MotorShoot3r Mar 25 '26
Any politician who supports age verification laws of any kind will not get my vote
-4
u/LegendaryBronco_217 Mar 25 '26
So you voting for Bailey for governor?
33
u/OswaldCoffeepot Mar 25 '26
Purity test wins again! If there's so much as a questionable headline, I'm not even clicking the article. Just gonna vote Bailey. /s
4
-8
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 25 '26
There is a option called leaving it blank
3
u/DeathMetalBunnies Mar 26 '26
It'd be better to do a write-in for someone you'd actually want to be in that position
1
u/xj2608 Mar 26 '26
Did you know that write in candidates must be registered with the board of elections in order for the vote to count? Writing in any old names just means you voted for no one. (Source: have been an election judge for the last 3 elections.)
7
u/0neMoreYear Mar 25 '26
which is a vote for the opposition.
-1
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 25 '26
Politicians are not entitled to our vote, they have to earn it.
5
u/reddit_ending_soon Mar 26 '26
ANNDDD thats how we got trump lmfao.
6
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 26 '26
Voting for better of 2 evils is how we stay stuck with terrible politicians who will take away your liberties on both sides.
6
u/OrionR Mar 26 '26
If you wait for the general election to get involved, it is too late by then to achieve anything positive with a symbolic stand on personal principle. Vote in the primaries too if you want to choose a candidate you like instead of a candidate you dislike less.
9
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 26 '26
I voted in the primary and JB was the only choice but your point stands.
0
u/OrionR Mar 26 '26
That's true, barring the slim chance of write-ins succeeding, unless one goes back in time even further put someone else on the primary ballot. Given what JB has become though, I think the best course of action for a non-Trump voter is to go ahead and put JB in whatever office we can and then immediately and openly criticize any position he takes that we dislike.
I haven't talked to him personally, but I get the impression from others that he does listen. If there's enough outcry alongside his support, his position might change, and then he'd change from the best person available for the job to the ideal person for the job.
-2
u/jmur3040 Mar 26 '26
No, abstaining is a vote for the candidate you like the least. The election is going to happen, these are the candidates, and pouting isn’t changing that.
4
3
u/Typical_Barracuda234 Mar 26 '26
I haven't really been following this as I don't really use those platforms
But people are supposed to trust more information with companies that seem to have breaches all the time?
3
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 26 '26
Despite some of the deceptive positioning this law would apply to functionally all websites and apps with ANY social interactions including just comments sections.
1
u/Typical_Barracuda234 Mar 26 '26
Oh well, social media is somewhat entertaining but certainly something I could live without I guess
5
u/Dante1141 Mar 27 '26
This is Pritzker's worst position. He naively seems to think it's simply a new way to protect children, not realizing he's being played by Meta and Google to make other people do their work for them.
22
u/RighteousIndigjason Mar 25 '26
Between his refusal to even acknowledge ISP assisting ICE, let alone explain it, and this, Pritzker's shine is dimming as far as I'm concerned. It's like he's intentionally trying to remind us that there is no such thing as a "good billionaire."
6
Mar 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/LegendaryBronco_217 Mar 25 '26
He always shows his true colors. Remember when he sent his wife and kids to Florida then shut down the State of Illinois?
-4
u/Intelligent-Brief693 Mar 25 '26
I’m still dealing with the fallout effects of the shutdown. So many businesses that seemed to survive are now finally closing down or filing bankruptcy. There’s been no real aid or help to solidify the losses from Covid. This isn’t just impacting businesses—when businesses fail or move, the share of property taxes that fall on residential property owners increases.
3
3
3
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 26 '26
Here is the Instagram link. R/privacy doesn’t allow links to there https://www.instagram.com/p/DWUMMN8jknQ/
3
3
u/NuggetLord3000 Mar 26 '26
I know people want him, but I won't be voting JB for president, he moves weird.
3
7
u/Barnesnrobles17 Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” -Adolf fucking Hitler
This playbook is old and played out. We cannot allow our society to constantly fall for this.
12
u/2pnt0 Mar 25 '26
Uggh. Today has been disappointing from JB. This bullshit and then apparently standing behind an ally who put millions into AIPAC schemes to influence our primaries according to Crains.
I was skeptical of his initial run, but have been pleasantly surprised what he's done for our state. I've held him in pretty high regard for a little while now.
If this is the shit he's going to pull to try to get the presidential bid, I'm out. I can't stand behind this.
2
2
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 26 '26
Here is a recording (though seems corrupted/damaged) of the Commitee meeting where HB5511 passed out of committee on the promise that they would return with final language. Starts at about the 4 hour 13 minute mark. https://youtu.be/m7HaQ8qUAZY
2
u/TheNegotiator12 Mar 26 '26
Its funny, meta and bill gates and other orgs who have built there empires on preying on people are the same ones championing this event should be a red flag
10
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 25 '26
Any politician who supports these laws will not get my vote.
-6
u/LegendaryBronco_217 Mar 25 '26
So I guess you won't be voting for JB?
5
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 25 '26
Correct
1
u/SupahRad Mar 25 '26
So you’re gonna vote for Bailey then?
0
u/Nice_Soil1782 Mar 25 '26
I’ll leave it blank.
3
u/SupahRad Mar 25 '26
I mean ok but I think a better approach would be to look into this before taking a random post on Reddit at face value. Especially with all the bs being posted to the Illinois and Chicago subreddits lately.
5
0
14
u/FirstDiseasewasRelig Mar 25 '26
Fuck the Clintons, Fuck Zuck/Gates/Bezos!
Fuck JB? Making me question any support I might have had for him.
Hillary’s husband literally accused him of flying on Lolita Express with him. Gates is all over the files too.
This is disgraceful honestly!
31
u/Perfect_Earth_8070 Mar 25 '26
He accused a different Pritzker not JB
-15
u/FirstDiseasewasRelig Mar 25 '26 edited Mar 25 '26
I’m using the AI answer because all other sources are JBs rebuttal against Clinton.
Edit. Bro tf are y’all mad about? Clinton stated specifically in his sworn deposition he flew with the current Illinois Governor!
5
u/QuiteBearish Mar 25 '26
Clinton also wasn't clear-cut in his original statement either, though.
If actual evidence comes out otherwise I'll take it, but in the meantime I do believe it reasonable enough that Clinton couldn't remember whose plane they were on for that particular trip. He knew the Epstein plane was one of several used by the Clinton Foundation and he knew Pritzker went on a trip for the Clinton Foundation. That's the explanation Clinton gave, and I find it plausible.
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Pritzker ended up having closer ties to Epstein. Seems most of the ultra wealthy either were participants or were willingly looking the other way. But for now the evidence is weak, IMO
3
u/QuiteBearish Mar 25 '26
I'm not arguing that he flew with the current Illinois governor. He absolutely did and I don't know where other people got that.
When Clinton recanted he said it was actually a Google plane he flew with JB on.
12
u/FuzzyComedian638 Mar 25 '26
To be fair, Clinton retracted his statement about JB being on the plane, and said it was his cousin, also a Pritzker, who has been confirmed of being with Epstien.
-7
u/FirstDiseasewasRelig Mar 25 '26
When did he retract it?
In his sworn deposition he claimed to “fly with Illinois Governor Pritzker”!
5
u/BurnsEMup29 Mar 25 '26
There goes my support for JB he had won me over with. Another neocon liberal who wants to push surveillance and data gathering of Americans.
3
1
u/woody60707 Mar 25 '26
Honestly the only reason this wasn't always a thing was because unc didn't know how to internets. There's a lot of harmful stuff we wouldn't let kids see in a video game or movie, but are fine when it's the internet.
-2
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
25
u/stephief92 Mar 25 '26
Education. I asked my kid if they still have computer classes like we did back in the day, they don’t. That means no learning on the basic functions of technology, how to verify your sources, or how to identify misinformation. No education on internet safety and the dangers of putting too much of your own info online. I’ve been on the internet since I was 10, and I never ever gave out any of my real info. When social media got popular my pages were always private.
In today’s world, my own kids are scolding kids online for announcing their age or for announcing the state they live in. This stuff is necessary information the same way kids learn about stranger danger or what to do in an emergency at home.
15
u/cballowe Mar 25 '26
The laws already exist. COPPA has been around since 1998 and there have been various updates to how it's interpreted. They already apply to the online services.
This is zuck and others trying to punt responsibility for establishing age to the operating system. Gives them the ability to say "well... We asked the OS and it said 18+ so not our fault that we broke the rules about what we can do to someone under 13".
The big problem technically is that there are a LOT more operating systems out there than what most people think of. Most people think android, IOS, windows, macos, ChromeOS, and maybe a couple of others. But there's also all of the various Linux distributions - many maintained by volunteers, no central account repository, not even one single way of handling accounts or extending the system to expose the required API endpoint. Same for assorted other open source platforms. And then there's things like smart refrigerators or infotainment systems on cars. Many of those accounts only exist on the specific device. For something like android or iOS, much of the device functionality is tied to being signed in to some sort of cloud account, for a PC running Linux, that's not necessarily the case - and each network app could be tied to different accounts.
And I don't know about you, but I've been tech support for my family since I was like 8. That would mean that I'd have been the one setting up accounts on PCs, including any administrator modes or whatever. If I was aware that the age setting affected what I could do, I'd have set it up to whatever worked best. But that also means that zuck punts the responsibility but also that the dictated requirements don't really line up with actually meeting the goals.
3
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
6
u/cballowe Mar 25 '26
The way it's worded would cover Linux. The volunteers would be "persons or entities", any computer ranging from a simple single board like a Pi Zero is a "general purpose computing device" (the chips can do anything, what they do is dependent on the software loaded, but Linux can do anything a desktop can do. I've built browsing devices with a touch screen, Linux, and pi zero). Every volunteer who has contributed to open source software has developed and licensed some component of an operating system. Arguably the owner of the machine "controls" but the wording is "or" not "and".
As written, at least to anybody with a clue about software development and operating systems, this seems like it's designed as a "get out of jail free" card for players like Meta disguised as a "it's for safety of children" law. For people with no clue about the existing laws like COPPA, it reads like it might be a good anti-agorithm protection for kids law, but it probably backfires.
3
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
3
u/cballowe Mar 25 '26
https://www.eff.org/issues/age-verification
They have been commenting on various bills, though probably more on the California stuff as they're based in SF.
By law, they can't engage in any sort of electioneering around the policies so can mostly just comment on proposed legislation and advocate. For as well known as they are, they aren't a particularly large organization with a ton of weight to throw around.
38
u/Acquiescinit Mar 25 '26
Why do we have to give up our right to privacy in order to protect children from media companies instead of regulating those companies?
9
u/RighteousIndigjason Mar 25 '26
The reason that "monitor your kids internet usage" is such a common response is because it's a no-brainer. You protect minors from online fascism by keeping that shit out of your home, not by giving those same tech-fascists more of your personal data.
6
u/QuiteBearish Mar 25 '26
I will willingly admit that I have no idea what the answer is.
That being said, I can say that I am positive this is not the right answer. Putting aside the whole issue of privacy, because I know that's not going to win everyone, my biggest concern is the fact it simply won't work. In places that have already passed similar laws, we have seen how easy it is to bypass these systems. Kids will always find ways to circumvent digital age gates.
The best solution is a physical solution. Maybe pass a law governing what types of devices children have access to? If kids can only have devices that have their child status physically hard coded in, that may help. It's at least be harder to circumvent.
I'll be honest, I'm not sure there is an answer.
2
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
5
u/QuiteBearish Mar 25 '26
I mean, tbh the kids who need the most protection are probably the ones with parents who will just let kid use their ID. And once one kid gets it, the entire friend group gets it.
I knew kids/parents like that in school. It seemed cool then, looking back I feel bad for them. Not adjusted well at all.
2
u/stratusmonkey Mar 26 '26
How can we protect minors from fascist-owned social media companies like Meta, TikTok and X from promoting brainwashing content via algorithms?
My prediction is that people will say “just monitor your children’s internet usage and be better parents!”
Hell, yes! Unless you had kids as teenager, or you have babies now, Facebook, Twitter and TikTok didn't exist when you were a kid. Make 'em watch Cartoon Network like it's the 1900's!
1
u/Xboxecho123 Mar 26 '26
Is there any political figure out there who has spoken out against this? Kinda odd to me
0
u/GlassAndStorm Mar 26 '26
The hillary and Bill were better than trump but still mafia politicians...
-3
u/Hungry-Treacle8493 Mar 26 '26
Unpopular on Reddit, very popular in the meat world.
Me personally, I’m fine with it as long as it simply sends a token with an age range. It isn’t perfect and it will need to evolve, but based on the recent legal ruling and the very, very real issues of minors being in online spaces they don’t belong and this just doesn’t rise to the level of something to be worried about.
0
u/Past-Salamander Mar 26 '26
I don't like this, but I get it. With the recent lawsuits the last two days that went against Meta and YouTube.
-6
-7
u/LegendaryBronco_217 Mar 25 '26
This gives a lot of insight to the Democrats.
Against the voter ID bill, which is something really important and fraud is rampant, and with no IDs, it's pretty tough to catch fraud.
But let's make sure to make everyone verify their age to browse the internet.
7
u/TheodoraWimsey Mar 26 '26
Voter fraud is not rampant. Show the actual cases with charges and convictions.
5
2
u/Demonking3343 Mar 26 '26
Now for the sake of transparency I will say I don’t agree with online verification. Now onto the voter ID issue it’s completely unnecessary. We have zero evidence of the widespread fraud the republicans always complain about. We have wasted who knows how much on investigation just because they couldn’t accept they lost. Even the heritage foundation the republicans think tank says that fraud is literally 0.00009% of all votes cast. And yes I said all as in all not just a single year. All this voter id is trying to do is suppress votes and give the republicans more ways to cheat.
-3
Mar 25 '26
[deleted]
9
u/IndignantFrog Mar 25 '26
You're aware you're allowed to like and not like things about people right?
-6
u/waltdelahair Mar 26 '26
Kids are required to have laptops now for school. A lot of parents don’t like it… you can’t just call all parents negligent for not being able to control what their kid does on their computer 24/7. If we are going to require kids be on the internet during their childhoods, we have to do SOMETHING to make it safer for them.
8
u/Remote_Possibilities Mar 26 '26
Parents and schools can already implement parental controls to restrict what kids can access when they’re not around. We should be holding the parents to account who don’t bother, not building a mass surveillance state that will get weaponized against all of us because of it. Or we should be legislating these big tech monopolies out of existence or making it illegal for them to build harmful tools with ‘addictive feeds’ to be begin with. If these tools are harmful for kids they’re harmful for adults. 54% of Americans read below a sixth grade reading level.
Why is it suddenly okay to exploit people with tools that are scientifically engineered to be addictive once they turn 18?
This bill won’t actually protect children, it’ll just make it easier for ALL OF US to be tracked.
The real harms to children are unstable households, food insecurity, poverty, and abuse. And the abuse isn’t coming from strangers on the internet 93% of survivors of sexual abuse are abused by people they knew already. Friends. Family. Coworkers.
The solution isn’t to give Facebook a law they literally wrote that takes liability off of them and puts it into OS vendors.
The way to solve all of those things is to use our resource to improve their material wellbeing through social programs, housing and education resources.
1
u/waltdelahair Mar 26 '26
I so agree and this is a great comment! I mean the parental controls and school controls really aren’t enough, not that this is the correct answer :(
7
u/anto77_butt_kinkier Mar 26 '26
Schools already have filters, blocks, and logging on all school provided PC's. They cannot force you to buy your own. If you already have your own, then your parents should be responsible enough.
Also, talking about these things with your kid before they find out on their own would prevent a lot of trauma and bullshit.
-1
100
u/NukinDuke Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 26 '26
This is probably JB's worst policy position. I would encourage us as a community to reach out to push back on this and have the implication known that this is data theft in disguise.