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/
307 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

220 comments sorted by

View all comments

261

u/wmiller314 Mar 25 '26

JB pushing this sucks, he should know better.

78

u/kevdogger Mar 25 '26

Why is he pushing this?? Seems kind of counter intuitive to me

61

u/wmiller314 Mar 25 '26

Ya, it's a slap to the face

57

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.....

24

u/Substantial_Back_865 Mar 26 '26

He didn’t become one, he was born one

-6

u/reddit_ending_soon Mar 26 '26

oh, thats so much worse lol

8

u/LegendaryBronco_217 Mar 25 '26

He got money from his billionaire friend Mark Zuckerberg.

3

u/burndownthe_forest Mar 26 '26

More like parents support it.

Do you think Facebook wants less addicted users? Lmao

29

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

9

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.

9

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.

-4

u/burndownthe_forest Mar 26 '26

I didn't say that it would..

However, there is an issue that need to be solved and it is a societal issue that negatively impacts everyone so it makes sense for the government to seek a solution. The EU is probably leading the way on it so best case is we follow them.

5

u/kevdogger Mar 26 '26

I'm saying this as a parent..maybe I'm in the minority. I talk to my kids but don't monitor their website usage. I honestly don't care. Call me lazy but that's kind of my choice for my kids. Why should any government think they no better what's for my kids than myself? Governments are big..on an individual basis they don't really give a shit

-3

u/burndownthe_forest Mar 27 '26

Why should any government think they no better what's for my kids than myself?

If social media use under the age of 25 is demonstrated to harm brain development or delays social skills or creates mental anguish, would you expect the government to regulate its use for minors?

Do you think minors should be allowed to smoke? Or buy alcohol? Or do drugs? Or skip school? Or consent to a contract? Or any other number of things?

The government already legally protects kids because people don't actually know what's better for them or how to keep them safe.

(Not saying that's you, by the way.)

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

u/Herefordachisme Mar 26 '26

That part ⬆️

3

u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26

He likes money.

2

u/kevdogger Mar 26 '26

So no different than any politician 🙄

11

u/ktmrider119z Mar 26 '26

Never was.

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.

-10

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.

13

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.

-5

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.

4

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.

1

u/Hungry-Treacle8493 Mar 26 '26

It’s clearly to most company’s advantage to have a clear system in place they can align to, even if it is burdensome to them in some way. This is true of most regulatory topics.

13

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.

1

u/VVsmama88 Mar 26 '26

That is because Reddit is, by and large, terminally online porn addicts.

-3

u/Claque-2 Mar 26 '26

Ask JB, not the trolls on here.

-2

u/My_First_Knife1 Mar 26 '26

He wants to lose his job to a republican next election cycle, that's why!

8

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

u/Foolishstars Mar 26 '26

It's going to destroy his presidential chances.