It is about California. The comment you replied to was about California. My comments replying to you have been about California. That original comment you replied to and my own comments have said that California’s law is reasonable. You keep saying it isn’t, but you have yet to present any reason why.

Once again, that post is about age verification, so it doesn’t apply to the California law. If there are no documents or pictures stored for age verification, there is nothing to breach.

He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.

what is the point of the OS asking

Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.

Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.

Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.

This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.

deleted by creator

SEO doesn’t mean that the site pays Google. It’s exactly the opposite. SEO means gaming the Google ranking algorithm to appear higher in the organic rankings without paying Google. In the past, people would do this by creating link farms to game the page rank component.

Supporting apartheid has nothing to do with antitrust. In fact, there is no law against it at all.

Google does not “throttle access to sites that don’t pay them.” Paying for an ad placement is as old as newspapers. There is no evidence that they additionally down rank sites that have no advertising account with them, and it wouldn’t make any business sense anyway because having nonpaying sites rank highly is what convinces a paying site to pay more to get top of page ad placement.

Welcome to 2010. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2010/06/exercising-our-remote-application.html

Remote installation via the web has been exposed to the user since 2011. https://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2011/02/introducing-android-market-website.html

This also means users can remotely uninstall. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-store-uninstall-button-3614548/

Yes, it’s possible that Google will abuse this, but it would be an easy antitrust case.

Unlike laws against making guns, this law applies to printer sellers, not to their users.