On January 1st of 2026, Texas will be required to give ID to download apps from the app stores. It doesn't matter if it's NSFW or not. (legiscan.com)
from InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 17:29
https://lemmy.world/post/37439459

cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/37439450

  S.B. No. 2420

AN ACT relating to the regulation of platforms for the sale and distribution of software applications for mobile devices. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Subtitle C, Title 5, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by adding Chapter 121 to read as follows: CHAPTER 121. SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 121.001. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the App Store Accountability Act. Sec. 121.002. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) “Age category” means information collected by the owner of an app store to designate a user based on the age categories described by Section 121.021(b). (2) “App store” means a publicly available Internet website, software application, or other electronic service that distributes software applications from the owner or developer of a software application to the user of a mobile device. (3) “Minor” means a child who is younger than 18 years of age who has not had the disabilities of minority removed for general purposes. (4) “Mobile device” means a portable, wireless electronic device, including a tablet or smartphone, capable of transmitting, receiving, processing, and storing information wirelessly that runs an operating system designed to manage hardware resources and perform common services for software applications on handheld electronic devices. (5) “Personal data” means any information, including sensitive data, that is linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable individual. The term includes pseudonymous data when the data is used by a person who processes or determines the purpose and means of processing the data in conjunction with additional information that reasonably links the data to an identified or identifiable individual. The term does not include deidentified data or publicly available information. SUBCHAPTER B. DUTIES OF APP STORES Sec. 121.021. DUTY TO VERIFY AGE OF USER; AGE CATEGORIES. (a) When an individual in this state creates an account with an app store, the owner of the app store shall use a commercially reasonable method of verification to verify the individual’s age category under Subsection (b). (b) The owner of an app store shall use the following age categories for assigning a designation: (1) an individual who is younger than 13 years of age is considered a “child”; (2) an individual who is at least 13 years of age but younger than 16 years of age is considered a “younger teenager”; (3) an individual who is at least 16 years of age but younger than 18 years of age is considered an “older teenager”; and (4) an individual who is at least 18 years of age is considered an “adult.” Sec. 121.022. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIRED. (a) If the owner of the app store determines under Section 121.021 that an individual is a minor who belongs to an age category that is not “adult,” the owner shall require that the minor’s account be affiliated with a parent account belonging to the minor’s parent or guardian. (b) For an account to be affiliated with a minor’s account as a parent account, the owner of an app store must use a commercially reasonable method to verify that the account belongs to an individual who: (1) the owner of the app store has verified belongs to the age category of “adult” under Section 121.021; and (2) has legal authority to make a decision on behalf of the minor with whose account the individual is seeking affiliation. © A parent account may be affiliated with multiple minors’ accounts. (d) Except as provided by this section, the owner of an app store must obtain consent from the minor’s parent or guardian through the parent account affiliated with the minor’s account before allowing the minor to: (1) download a software application; (2) purchase a software application; or (3) make a purchase in or using a software application. (e) The owner of an app store must: (1) obtain consent for each individual download or purchase sought by the minor; and (2) notify the developer of each applicable software application if a minor’s parent or guardian revokes consent through a parent account. (f) To obtain consent from a minor’s parent or guardian under Subsection (d), the owner of an app store may use any reasonable means to: (1) disclose to the parent or guardian: (A) the specific software application or purchase for which consent is sought; (B) the rating under Section 121.052 assigned to the software application or purchase; © the specific content or other elements that led to the rating assigned under Section 121.052; (D) the nature of any collection, use, or distribution of personal data that would occur because of the software application or purchase; and (E) any measures taken by the developer of the software application or purchase to protect the personal data of users; (2) give the parent or guardian a clear choice to give or withhold consent for the download or purchase; and (3) ensure that the consent is given: (A) by the parent or guardian; and (B) through the account affiliated with a minor’s account under Subsection (a). (g) If a software developer provides the owner of an app store with notice of a change under Section 121.053, the owner of the app store shall: (1) notify any individual who has given consent under this section for a minor’s use or purchase relating to a previous version of the changed software application; and (2) obtain consent from the individual for the minor’s continued use or purchase of the software application. (h) The owner of an app store is not required to obtain consent from a minor’s parent or guardian for: (1) the download of a software application that: (A) provides a user with direct access to emergency services, including: (i) 9-1-1 emergency services; (ii) a crisis hotline; or (iii) an emergency assistance service that is legally available to a minor; (B) limits data collection to information: (i) collected in compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. Section 6501 et seq.); and (ii) necessary for the provision of emergency services; © allows a user to access and use the software application without requiring the user to create an account with the software application; and (D) is operated by or in partnership with: (i) a governmental entity; (ii) a nonprofit organization; or (iii) an authorized emergency service provider; or (2) the purchase or download of a software application that is operated by or in partnership with a nonprofit organization that: (A) develops, sponsors, or administers a standardized test used for purposes of admission to or class placement in a postsecondary educational institution or a program within a postsecondary educational institution; and (B) is subject to Subchapter D, Chapter 32, Education Code. Sec. 121.023. DISPLAY OF AGE RATING FOR SOFTWARE APPLICATION. (a) If the owner of an app store that operates in this state has a mechanism for displaying an age rating or other content notice, the owner shall: (1) make available to users an explanation of the mechanism; and (2) display for each software application available for download and purchase on the app store the age rating and other content notice. (b) If the owner of an app store that operates in this state does not have a mechanism for displaying an age rating or other content notice, the owner shall display for each software application available for download and purchase on the app store: (1) the rating under Section 121.052 assigned to the software application; and (2) the specific content or other elements that led to the rating assigned under Section 121.052. © The information displayed under this section must be clear, accurate, and conspicuous. Sec. 121.024. INFORMATION FOR SOFTWARE APPLICATION DEVELOPERS. The owner of an app store that operates in this state shall, using a commercially available method, allow the developer of a software application to access current information related to: (1) the age category assigned to each user under Section 121.021(b); and (2) whether consent has been obtained for each minor user under Section 121.022. Sec. 121.025. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA. The owner of an app store that operates in this state shall protect the personal data of users by: (1) limiting the collection and processing of personal data to the minimum amount necessary for: (A) verifying the age of an individual; (B) obtaining consent under Section 121.022; and © maintaining compliance records; and (2) transmitting personal data using industry-standard encryption protocols that ensure data integrity and confidentiality. Sec. 121.026. VIOLATION. (a) The owner of an app store that operates in this state violates this subchapter if the owner: (1) enforces a contract or a provision of a terms of service agreement against a minor that the minor entered into or agreed to without consent under Section 121.022; (2) knowingly misrepresents information disclosed under Section 121.022(f)(1); (3) obtains a blanket consent to authorize multiple downloads or purchases; or (4) shares or discloses personal data obtained for purposes of Section 121.021, except as required by Section 121.024 or other law. (b) The owner of an app store is not liable for a violation of Section 121.021 or 121.022 if the owner of the app store: (1) uses widely adopted industry standards to: (A) verify the age of each user as required by Section 121.021; and (B) obtain parental consent as required by Section 121.022; and (2) applies those standards consistently and in good faith. Sec. 121.027. CONSTRUCTION OF SUBCHAPTER. Nothing in this subchapter may be construed to: (1) prevent the owner of an app store that operates in this state from taking reasonable measures to block, detect, or prevent the distribution of: (A) obscene material, as that term is defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code; or (B) other material that may be harmful to minors; (2) require the owner of an app store that operates in this state to disclose a user’s personal data to the developer of a software application except as provided by this subchapter; (3) allow the owner of an app store that operates in this state to use a measure required by this chapter in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, anticompetitive, or unlawful; (4) block or filter spam; (5) prevent criminal activity; or (6) protect the security of an app store or software application. SUBCHAPTER C. DUTIES OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION DEVELOPERS Sec. 121.051. APPLICABILITY OF SUBCHAPTER. This subchapter applies only to the developer of a software application that the developer makes available to users in this state through an app store. Sec. 121.052. DESIGNATION OF AGE RATING. (a) The developer of a software application shall assign to each software application and to each purchase that can be made through the software application an age rating based on the age categories described by Section 121.021(b). (b) The developer of a software application shall provide to each app store through which the developer makes the software application available: (1) each rating assigned under Subsection (a); and (2) the specific content or other elements that led to each rating provided under Subdivision (1). Sec. 121.053. CHANGES TO SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS. (a) The developer of a software application shall provide notice to each app store through which the developer makes the software application available before making any significant change to the terms of service or privacy policy of the software application. (b) For purposes of this section, a change is significant if it: (1) changes the type or category of personal data collected, stored, or shared by the developer; (2) affects or changes the rating assigned to the software application under Section 121.052 or the content or elements that led to that rating; (3) adds new monetization features to the software application, including: (A) new opportunities to make a purchase in or using the software application; or (B) new advertisements in the software application; or (4) materially changes the functionality or user experience of the software application. Sec. 121.054. AGE VERIFICATION. (a) The developer of a software application shall create and implement a system to use information received under Section 121.024 to verify: (1) for each user of the software application, the age category assigned to that user under Section 121.021(b); and (2) for each minor user of the software application, whether consent has been obtained under Section 121.022. (b) The developer of a software application shall use information received from the owner of an app store under Section 121.024 to perform the verification required by this section. Sec. 121.055. USE OF PERSONAL DATA. (a) The developer of a software application may use personal data provided to the developer under Section 121.024 only to: (1) enforce restrictions and protections on the software application related to age; (2) ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and (3) implement safety-related features and default settings. (b) The developer of a software application shall delete personal data provided by the owner of an app store under Section 121.024 on completion of the verification required by Section 121.054. © Notwithstanding Subsection (a), nothing in this chapter relieves a social media platform from doing age verification as required by law. Sec. 121.056. VIOLATION. (a) Except as provided by this section, the developer of a software application violates this subchapter if the developer: (1) enforces a contract or a provision of a terms of service agreement against a minor that the minor entered into or agreed to without consent under Section 121.054; (2) knowingly misrepresents an age rating or reason for that rating under Section 121.052; or (3) shares or discloses the personal data of a user that was acquired under this subchapter. (b) The developer of a software application is not liable for a violation of Section 121.052 if the software developer: (1) uses widely adopted industry standards to determine the rating and specific content required by this section; and (2) applies those standards consistently and in good faith. © The developer of a software application is not liable for a violation of Section 121.054 if the software developer: (1) relied in good faith on age category and consent information received from the owner of an app store; and (2) otherwise complied with the requirements of this section. SUBCHAPTER D. ENFORCEMENT Sec. 121.101. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE. A violation of this chapter constitutes a deceptive trade practice in addition to the practices described by Subchapter E, Chapter 17, and is actionable under that subchapter. Sec. 121.102. CUMULATIVE REMEDIES. The remedies provided by this chapter are not exclusive and are in addition to any other action or remedy provided by law. SECTION 2. It is the intent of the legislature that every provision, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this Act, and every application of the provisions in this Act to every person, group of persons, or circumstances, is severable from each other. If any application of any provision in this Act to any person, group of persons, or circumstances is found by a court to be invalid for any reason, the remaining applications of that provision to all other persons and circumstances shall be severed and may not be affected. SECTION 3. This Act takes effect January 1, 2026.

  ______________________________ 	______________________________
     President of the Senate 	Speaker of the House     

         I hereby certify that S.B. No. 2420 passed the Senate on
  April 16, 2025, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 1; and that
  the Senate concurred in House amendments on May 14, 2025, by the
  following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 1.
  

  ______________________________
  Secretary of the Senate    

         I hereby certify that S.B. No. 2420 passed the House, with
  amendments, on May 9, 2025, by the following vote: Yeas 120,
  Nays 9, three present not voting.
  

  ______________________________
  Chief Clerk of the House   

  

  Approved:
  
  ______________________________ 
              Date
  
  
  ______________________________ 
            Governor

#technology

threaded - newest

NGram@piefed.ca on 16 Oct 18:04 next collapse

I've got no clue about legal documents, especially how they work in Texas, but this seems weirdly broad and with a pretty glaring loophole.

The weirdly broad part:

(2) "App store" means a publicly available Internet
website, software application, or other electronic service that
distributes software applications from the owner or developer of a
software application to the user of a mobile device.

This sounds like any website suddenly becomes an app store as soon as it starts distributing software for a mobile device. So (ignoring my following point), if I suddenly post my new APK on my personal site suddenly it's an app store!? Also aren't websites software applications? That'll be a fun one to fight out with browsers...

(4) "Mobile device" means a portable, wireless
electronic device, including a tablet or smartphone, capable of
transmitting, receiving, processing, and storing information
wirelessly that runs an operating system designed to manage
hardware resources and perform common services for software
applications on handheld electronic devices.

This sounds like it includes laptops but not desktop computers.

The glaring loophole:

(a) When an individual in this state creates an account with an app
store, the owner of the app store shall use a commercially
reasonable method of verification to verify the individual's age
category under Subsection (b).

So if your app store does not require an account, you do not need to verify anyone's age!? I'm all for it but that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the law. F-droid and my (example) personal-site-turned-app-store rejoice!

Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org on 16 Oct 18:29 next collapse

F-droid and my (example) personal-site-turned-app-store rejoice!

Until Google kills them soon.

other_cat@piefed.zip on 16 Oct 23:41 collapse

Feels like these things are lining up “coincidentally” huh?

lividweasel@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 19:37 next collapse

This sounds like any website suddenly becomes an app store as soon as it starts distributing software for a mobile device. So (ignoring my following point), if I suddenly post my new APK on my personal site suddenly it’s an app store!?

I think so. The intention is probably to have the law cover any method of getting your hands on an app, not just what we typically know as “app stores”. Otherwise, it would leave a loophole.

This sounds like it includes laptops but not desktop computers.

I thought that at first too, but I think the part at the end about “handheld electronic devices” is what limits it to not include laptops.

NGram@piefed.ca on 16 Oct 20:36 collapse

They do use handheld and never define it, but I can hold my laptop with my hand so I’m not sure that’s necessarily a good way of disqualifying laptops. That also seems to strictly apply to the operating system ("runs an operating system designed […] for software applications on handheld electronic devices"), which might be a fun legal quagmire as well since Linux is designed for all sorts of platforms. If I install Linux on my (formerly) Windows laptop does it suddenly become a mobile device?

It does bring up another interesting niche of computers: handheld PCs, especially handheld gaming PCs. Does this law apply to Steam Decks?

This whole thing screams “written by tech illiterates” since it seems to ignore regular computers and only focus on phones when it’s all just variations of the same thing – form factor and the software running on top isn’t very relevant to whatever goal I presume they’re trying to achieve. If they really want to collect everyone’s ID, age, and other privacy-violating information they’d be better off doing it everywhere. But maybe I shouldn’t give out advice for speed running fascism…

brbposting@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:28 collapse

I demand this guy’s ID (& SSN just in case to protect the children against terrorism)

<img alt="Stock photo of a man carrying a desktop computer" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/949c8060-5ec9-4e6d-accc-c57ef01f41c6.jpeg">

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 20:07 next collapse

All modern websites just serve JS applications now, so wouldn’t this simply apply to the entire web?

NGram@piefed.ca on 16 Oct 20:25 collapse

That was my interpretation too, except not restricted to “modern” websites. It sounds more like any website, modern or not, JS or not.

The part that is funny in that situation is that probably means web browsers are considered “app stores”. From a technical standpoint that’s actually pretty accurate (though they also handle running the “app”, unlike a regular app store), but has the fun consequence of making web browsers also “app store stores”. Most browsers can be used without an account though, so I look forward to the dumb antics companies with large legal departments come up with for this one.

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 20:29 collapse

There was a time when we browsers just rendered hypertext, which is markup, not a program.

trolololol@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 21:38 collapse

Many people disagree, though I’m not one of them.

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 21:47 collapse

Yes, many people have objectively false opinions.

mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 16 Oct 22:26 next collapse

The broad definition for “app stores” was likely intended specifically to block loopholes where people just spin up their own sites and say “it’s just my website, not an app store.”

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 07:08 collapse

That would make sense, so it’s not right. If you can’t figure out what the government will do and one of the options makes sense, that’s not what they will do

DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org on 17 Oct 01:18 collapse

(4) “Mobile device” means a portable, wireless electronic device, including a tablet or smartphone, capable of transmitting, receiving, processing, and storing information wirelessly that runs an operating system designed to manage hardware resources and perform common services for software applications on handheld electronic devices.

Given the existence of handheld PCs, which just so happen to run the same OS as desktops and laptops, if handheld PCs are classed under the same category as Android and iOS devices, this has me worried that desktops and laptops will be ensnared in this as collateral damage too.

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 07:06 collapse

Windows has an app store. I doubt that was who they had in mind

DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org on 17 Oct 08:02 collapse

It’s optional for now except in S-mode, assuming MS isn’t legally forced to enable S-mode by default and block ‘sideloading’ of downloaded exes in Texas.

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 14:49 collapse

downloaded exes in Texas.

that was much cleverer than the joke i thought i was teeing up.

DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org on 17 Oct 21:47 collapse

I’m sure MS didn’t think of that when abbreviating their executables as exes.

baggachipz@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 18:06 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/11288ccf-cc36-4160-99f6-8e418c0b1c4e.gif">

dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 16 Oct 19:04 collapse

man I miss veep. one of the funniest shows Ive seen

baggachipz@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 19:28 collapse

And apparently the most accurate representation of the executive branch.

Meowie_Gamer@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 18:27 next collapse

i dont live in texas, but ill probably be forced to use an alternative method for installing apps on my degoogled phone eventually.

fuck republicans.

InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 22:17 collapse

i dont live in texas

Vanishing list of reasons to move there.

Meowie_Gamer@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 00:23 next collapse

real

Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 08:28 collapse

I had a group of friends that moved there from the Midwest in the 10s, and I hope they have the presence of mind to get the fuck out.

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 18:40 next collapse

VPNs have never been more powerful

empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 16 Oct 19:16 collapse

I’m sure those will be illegal by the end of 2026

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 19:18 next collapse

I mean, good luck. I’ve seen some noise about demanding VPNs be registered by individual. Even that’s going to rub a lot of tech bros the wrong way, so don’t hold your breath.

KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 16 Oct 22:54 collapse

How would you even enforce this?

UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 23:08 collapse

Exactly

skulblaka@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 22:52 next collapse

The oligarchs use VPNs to make their corporations function. They won’t be made illegal. Blanket banning all VPNs in America leads to an instant grinding halt of all commerce.

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:13 next collapse

Because this regime has never selectively enforced anything before….

user224@lemmy.sdf.org on 16 Oct 23:15 next collapse

I am sure you can rewrite it in some way.

“Software and services proxying traffic destined to public internet through another countries or states”, perhaps.

But from the lack of brain matter I’ve seen so far they’ll either:
a) Require blocking of ports 1194 and 51820
b) Manage to make routing illegal

empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 16 Oct 23:21 collapse

No no, illegal for CITIZENS to use. I’m sure they’ll have a licensing requirement allowing their use for corporate entities of course.

Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 08:24 collapse

If you didn’t have anything to hide, why do you need a VPN? /S

breezeblock@lemmy.ca on 16 Oct 18:49 next collapse

The party of freedom and small government

Aljernon@lemmy.today on 17 Oct 13:54 collapse

Small Government to them is defined as not spending tax money to help people.

MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 14:59 collapse

Not spending tax money to help poor people.

Aljernon@lemmy.today on 17 Oct 21:15 collapse

You are of course correct. My oversight.

MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip on 18 Oct 06:15 collapse

We poors have to look out for each other; it’s not like Texas is.

thejoker954@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 19:08 next collapse

One more step towards the great firewall.

treadful@lemmy.zip on 16 Oct 19:17 next collapse

A truly open source (and functional) phone can’t come fast enough.

InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 19:23 next collapse

And hopefully its mass adoption too.

Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social on 16 Oct 19:55 next collapse

GraphineOS will partner with a big manufacturer soon, then normies can switch over easier

prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 20:31 next collapse

Is Graphene not still Android?

Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social on 16 Oct 21:16 collapse

It’s basically android with all the spy ware stripped out and more privacy features, so not perfect but still significantly better than what we’ve got

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:12 next collapse

This would kill grapheneOS. The pressures they face now vs once they partner with and depend upon a manufacturer are very different. This will devour them.

WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:51 collapse

they already depend upon a manufacturer, as they require hardware security features only found in google pixels, which is a manufacturer that is even right now hostile to them

devolution@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:29 collapse

Lol. Remember OnePlus?

reddit_sux@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 13:32 collapse

Good old days of cyanogen mod

architect@thelemmy.club on 21 Oct 00:55 collapse

I wish but no way. The masses want the shiny thing that gets them clout.

xvertigox@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 22:45 collapse

FSF announces librephone project

Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 17 Oct 12:23 collapse

This will be just software, right? Not hardware/firmware?

bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de on 17 Oct 17:36 collapse

At the moment it isn’t even that. It’s more the concept of an inventory of the landscape of a plan.

cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone on 16 Oct 19:21 next collapse

Gonna be a whole lot more people downloading apps from “California”.

Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 16 Oct 20:41 next collapse

Wonder how much a company could make providing a low-cost VPN whose sole purpose is to to make US residents appear to be from California XD

mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 16 Oct 22:21 next collapse

At least on Apple, that wouldn’t help; Native apps (like the App Store) have GPS and cellular location access. You’d need to spoof your GPS and cellular location, which is a lot harder than simply connecting to a different VPN server.

Lots of people found that out when they deleted TikTok during the “ban”. TikTok continued to function in the US, but it was removed from the App Store so you couldn’t re-download it after deleting it. And simply changing your VPN to an international server didn’t help, because the App Store was loading available apps based on your cell location.

Toribor@corndog.social on 17 Oct 11:15 collapse

At least on Android, spoofing GPS location is trivial (not that workarounds like this should be necessary).

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:15 collapse

Remember that meme for windscribe VPN where they supposedly had a server located on Epstein Island because the feds can’t see anything that happens there?

Whatever happened to that? I know it was a joke but they already have the Antarctica server so why not run with this too?

goatinspace@feddit.org on 16 Oct 19:21 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://feddit.org/pictrs/image/d48def41-56ea-4762-939b-eb4b6aad73a3.gif">

vortexal@sopuli.xyz on 16 Oct 20:00 next collapse

I would say that I’m glad that I don’t live in Texas but the state I live in has also been slowly following this Nazi rhetoric as well, so it’s only a matter of time before we’re effected as well.

plz1@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 20:04 next collapse

Apple and Google should just prevent their app stores from functioning in Texas. This crap is getting absurd. Cause a few riots from citizens when all their apps stop working, or it’ll only get worse.

N0t_5ure@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 20:28 next collapse

Apple and Google should just prevent their app stores from functioning in Texas.

Ha ha, that’s a good one! Fascism’s enablers standing up to fascism.

iloveDigit@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:14 collapse

There is precedent. Hitler was taken out by a pretty big fascism enabler

vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 07:57 collapse

Also all the assassination attempts.

extremeboredom@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 23:02 next collapse

Same Apple and Google whose CEOs were standing behind the dictator during his inauguration this year?

user224@lemmy.sdf.org on 16 Oct 23:06 next collapse

Meanwhile: “Ooo! More data!”

sparky@lemmy.federate.cc on 17 Oct 00:30 next collapse

Yes, on the one hand, this is a chilling precedent that can only lead to long term despair and national ruination. But on the other hand, line go up next quarter. I think we all know which one Tim Apple will choose.

ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 17 Oct 02:48 collapse

Oligarchs want this. It has nothing to do with children.

homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 20:23 next collapse

In Texas, you say

ohulancutash@feddit.uk on 16 Oct 22:04 next collapse

Man, when they learn to read they’ll be pissed.

FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io on 16 Oct 22:26 next collapse

Meanwhile, Google is fucking with sideloading. Coincidence?

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 23:49 collapse

I think Google is mainly aiming to comply with EU law. But Brussels effect…

It should give Europeans pause that their tech regulation is red state style. Explains why their tech industry is on a red state level.

Zak@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 00:24 collapse

I’m not aware of any EU law requiring an OS vendor to restrict how users install software. The DMA requires Google to collect certain information from developers using Google’s store for distribution.

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 08:37 collapse

collect certain information from developers

Yes. Like a copy of their identity papers.

Consult Article 23 (“Identification of economic operators”) of the CRA. The entry into force fits Google’s timeline.

Zak@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 10:41 collapse

Economic operators shall, on request, provide the market surveillance authorities with the following information: the name and address of any economic operator who has supplied them with a product with digital elements

That says when Google distributes an app via the Play Store, Google must be able to name the developer.

It does not say that when I distribute an app via my website, Google has any obligations whatsoever.

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:19 collapse

That says when Google distributes an app via the Play Store, Google must be able to name the developer.

You’re thinking of the DSA (Article 30), in force since last year. The CRA is on top (or beside) of that, starting in 2027. Some are also pointing the finger at the RED (Article 3 3.). That’s the one that made Apple do USB chargers.

I expect phones are going to become a lot more locked down, especially in the EU.

It does not say that when I distribute an app via my website, Google has any obligations whatsoever.

Yes. Google is only demanding verification for certified phones.

Zak@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:45 collapse

What I quoted was CRA Article 23.

It clearly doesn’t impose any obligations on an OS vendor with regard to app installation where the OS vendor isn’t a party to the transaction.

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 12:49 collapse

You’re arguing that a dev shouldn’t be seen as supplying to Google just because their apps run on a Google system. I agree, that could be a valid argument, but I am not too sure if it would work in court.

Google is certainly following the spirit of the law. Maybe there is a tiny loophole here but imagine Google leaves that open. A few people install some shady app store full of malware and scams. Would a court find that Google had fulfilled all its legal obligations to protect its users?

Zak@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 13:04 collapse

I’m saying there’s no reasonable interpretation of this provision where a dev would be seen as supplying to Google by distributing an app that runs on Android without using Google’s store. Given the broader context of the CRA, it should be more clear; the CRA is about supply chains, and generally imposes obligations on entities acting as links in the supply chain. Google can’t sell apps if it doesn’t know where they came from.

The fact that Google plans not to forbid installation of unsigned apps via ADB would be a huge loophole if the intent was to force OS vendors to control all app distribution for those operating systems.

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 16:35 collapse

Here’s a definition:

‘product with digital elements’ means a software or hardware product and its remote data processing solutions, including software or hardware components being placed on the market separately;

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that such apps are components “placed on the market separately”. In fact, I think it’s exactly within the meaning. In any case, even if not, such loopholes are usually plugged by some of the vague, general obligations.

I don’t think ADB installation is a loophole. Once you poke around in the insides of a device, you’re generally on your own. I expect that devices are going to become more locked down before these regulations enter into force but only as far as absolutely necessary. Google doesn’t want to lock out the next generation of devs. Unless or until there is some fuss about people doing something bad and this is declared a loophole.

Zak@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 16:56 collapse

Apps definitely qualify as products with digital elements. The term that determines whether Google has obligations is this scenario is ‘economic operator’ Here’s the definition for that:

‘economic operator’ means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, or other natural or legal person who is subject to obligations in relation to the manufacture of products with digital elements or to the making available of products with digital elements on the market in accordance with this Regulation

When Google distributes apps via the Play Store, it is very obviously the distributor, which is defined:

‘distributor’ means a natural or legal person in the supply chain, other than the manufacturer or the importer, that makes a product with digital elements available on the Union market without affecting its properties

If someone else distributes apps using other infrastructure that happen to run on an OS that Google made, Google is not the distributor and does not incur any obligations that apply to distributors. (For completeness, Google is obviously not the manufacturer, authorised representative, or importer either.)

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 12:43 collapse

The verification demand is for Google certified Android.

‘electronic information system’ means a system, including electrical or electronic equipment, capable of processing, storing or transmitting digital data;

The OS or a phone both fit that definition.

‘component’ means software or hardware intended for integration into an electronic information system;

An app fits the definition of a component.

Maybe you would have to argue that an app is not actually a component. But if it’s a stand-alone thing, then why does it rely on an OS?

I think you can make a good argument that a phone without an OS is not a system. It’s not capable of much. Maybe custom roms will remain an option.


Anyway, Google is not abusing that loophole. So, no problem. F-Droid encourages users to complain to EU lawmakers about Google being a meanie. Maybe the EU will close it anyway as part of future tech regulation.

Zak@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 16:34 collapse

The OS or a phone both fit that definition.

Yes it does, and it means someone making and selling either has to have a certain level of knowledge about it supply chain.

An app fits the definition of a component.

If it’s bundled with the OS, it probably does. In that case, the OS vendor is a manufacturer and has a variety of obligations relative to the app detailed in article 13.

If the user is obtaining it directly from the developer and installing themselves, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a component or a product because the OS vendor is not distributing or manufacturing anything. If the app/OS combination were to be treated as a system of which the app is a component, it is the user who has manufactured that product by combining the two. If the user is not selling that system, they have no obligations under the CRA.

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 17:26 collapse

If it’s bundled with the OS, it probably does.

Components “placed on the market separately” are explicitly included a being part of the product.

Let me try to gather this together:

The manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, or other natural or legal person shall, on request, provide the market surveillance authorities with the name and address of any economic operator who has supplied them with a software product, including software or hardware components being placed on the market separately;


Economic operators shall, on request, provide the market surveillance authorities with the following information: (a) the name and address of any economic operator who has supplied them with a product with digital elements;

‘economic operator’ means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, or other natural or legal person who is subject to obligations in relation to the manufacture of products with digital elements or to the making available of products with digital elements on the market in accordance with this Regulation;

‘product with digital elements’ means a software or hardware product and its remote data processing solutions, including software or hardware components being placed on the market separately;

Zak@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 17:58 collapse

The who has supplied them part is the critical point here.

I’ll give an example outside of digital technology. If Ford sells a car with Michelin tires on it, Ford has some responsibility for those tires even though I can also buy them from Joe’s Tire Shop and put them on any car with the right size wheels. I can also buy Continental tires from Joe’s Tire Shop and put them on my Ford car. Ford has no responsibilities in relation to Continental Tires or Joe’s Tire Shop.

If Samsung preloads WhatsApp and Android on a phone, Samsung has to know where it got WhatsApp and Android. If I download Signal from signal.org/android/apk/ and install it on a Samsung phone running Google Android, neither Samsung nor Google is a party to that.

The CRA, including the parts you’re quoting does not impose any obligation on anyone with respect to a product or component they never touch.

General_Effort@lemmy.world on 19 Oct 13:35 collapse

I don’t see what makes you so certain. The EU unambiguously wants computing devices to be more locked down. It wants responsible developers to be tracked.

If your argument holds, then that only means that there is a loophole allowing devs to distribute apps anonymously. That’s where the car analogy fails. There are exceptions for small enterprises and “open source stewards”. These exist so that small players and start-ups won’t be overwhelmed by bureaucracy. They are not supposed to protect dev privacy or user freedom.

I can only repeat that I find your argument valid. I just don’t believe it would stand up in court. If Google was pushing back on this, I would still back them up on such arguments. But they understandably don’t.

Unless there is a major change in attitudes in Europe, we are going to see much more mandated control and surveillance, anyway.

Zak@lemmy.world on 19 Oct 13:52 collapse

Reading the text of the law makes me pretty certain. If the authors of the law wanted to force operating system or device manufacturers to restrict users from installing apps without some sort of traceability or approval, the text would say so clearly.

Google’s own statements about the policy are also a factor. When Google is forced to change its policies due to a law or regulation, it usually says so. Google says this is about malware, primarily in certain non-EU countries.

Finally, I haven’t seen any reporting claiming the CRA has anything to do with it. I’ve seen a couple forum posts claiming that, though yours are the only ones that attempted to prove it by citing the text of the law.

captainlezbian@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 22:29 next collapse

Even the government is bigger in Texas

SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 22:38 next collapse

Lol dumbasses

RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip on 16 Oct 22:44 next collapse

Wow! Dystopia.

Not long now until Texans gets assigned a mandatory tracking collar and a cage you have to return to spend your nights in.

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 16 Oct 23:11 next collapse

Attention developers: stop making apps. If you want profit, make a subscription to an account with a web app. Want to keep people happy? Subscription only charges them once. Bonus, the web app you write once works on everything, including those niche Linux phones.

Government moves to censor websites? Darknets aren’t just for criminals and conspiracy theorists anymore. Whitelist sites? We move to mesh networks like reticulum.

We nerds can move faster than a government can, especially this one.

Best thing about this is that moves like this totally destroy the profit-centric internet of today, flinging us back to a simpler, weirder, better classical internet we grew up with.

4am@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 00:28 next collapse

And for fuck sake make sure it works on Firefox!

Reygle@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 01:58 collapse

Perplexity is built in to Firefox now. Fuck Firefox.

pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 17 Oct 05:21 next collapse

well i mean, so are some others like le chat. not like Firefox hadn’t been trying to expand out of their browser.

TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 05:42 next collapse

Adding an optional extra search engine isn’t the end of the world.

They also have Google and Bing, which aren’t nice either, yet nobody was doing this performative outrage over optional search engine inclusions before.

chunes@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:25 collapse

Reminder to all downvoters: firefox sells your data now. You should be using librefox at the very least.

zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 17 Oct 13:44 next collapse

I think you mean librewolf, unless there is also a librefox.

scintilla@crust.piefed.social on 18 Oct 03:29 collapse

I really should pay more attention to firefox news. I’m not even sure what to do in the even mozilla implodes before a new non-chromimium browser actually becomes viable.

Fingers crossed for ladybird.

diablexical@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 00:50 next collapse

What about payments?

scottrepreneur@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 01:55 next collapse

Did credit cards stop working on websites?

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 16:45 collapse

You’ve never bought anything online before apps?

REDACTED@infosec.pub on 17 Oct 06:52 next collapse

But WEB3… Is your digital wallet ready?

cycadophyta@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 10:31 next collapse

I’ve been thinking for a while that web apps are the way to go. Screw native apps

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 12:04 next collapse

Depends. Are you storing and consuming your data or someone else’s?

Your data -> Native apps

Their data -> Web apps

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 16:43 collapse

You data hosted on your shit->still web apps

Spin up a container. Set up WireGuard. Done

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com on 18 Oct 07:07 collapse

I run everything I can on my phone, and lots of things on my PC, through web apps rather than stand-alone apps.

detren@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 10:57 next collapse

Didn’t even Steve jobs envision iPhones just doing everything through web apps at first too

ayyy@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 16:20 collapse

Nah, the app running functionality just wasn’t ready in time, so like the true marketing bro he was, he only wanted to project success and sold the thing he had working (web sites on a phone) as the best invention ever thought of ever. A year and a half later when the app making tools were finally ready, suddenly those were the greatest innovation ever thought of ever. All of a sudden in a span of less than 2 years from their introduction web apps were stupid and clunky and boomer.

Wronnay@lemmy.ml on 17 Oct 18:40 next collapse

Oh, I actually switched from making mobile apps back to web apps a while ago.

Not because of Texas but because I am sick of Google and Apple dictatorship.

architect@thelemmy.club on 21 Oct 00:44 collapse

I’m all about this but who and where? How do we organize?

muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works on 21 Oct 00:50 collapse

We don’t. Thats the point. If you organize into a single group you are now a target that can be destroyed. Ask the black panthers.

Instead, share everything and help eachother. Stay decentralized.

CosmoNova@lemmy.world on 16 Oct 23:56 next collapse

And the „We told you so!“ crowd shrugs and sighs.

runway608@kopitalk.net on 17 Oct 00:07 next collapse

I think it odd that Texas, a wealthy state, would attack the digital safety and privacy of its residents instead of addressing how power can cut out for days at a time or water boil advisories for its populations.

Anything but meeting the barest expectations of a “first” world country.

InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 00:14 next collapse

instead of addressing how power can cut out for days at a time or water boil advisories for its populations.

The free market is supposed to cover that. Texas is a libertarian wonderland in a way.

possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 17 Oct 08:16 next collapse

The US is 50 third world countries in a trench coat.

OmegaMan@lemmings.world on 17 Oct 12:09 collapse

They’re definitely doing things to address both of these? Making more grid connections with neighboring states. Approved $20 billion for water infrastructure over the summer.

PattyMcB@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 00:14 next collapse

I guess Texas really isn’t all about personal freedoms. Huh

InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 00:55 next collapse

Not if your working class for sure.

Jhex@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:33 next collapse

it’s never been… that is a dog whistle for “here you can be openly racist if you are white”

Aljernon@lemmy.today on 17 Oct 13:53 next collapse

These are people who define big government as “spending tax money to help people”.

PattyMcB@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 14:57 collapse

And then hold their hands out for their share when it comes time

abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 18 Oct 17:39 collapse

🌎 🧑‍🚀 🔫 🧑‍🚀 Never have been.

Wispy2891@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 00:41 next collapse

Even in China, where you’re basically forced to login with mobile (+ otp verification) for almost every service, there’s no such requirement for downloading apps from app stores

SaraTonin@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 07:16 collapse

Would you need to in China? i genuinely don’t know if downloading apps is something that’s done through WeChat but, if so, the government’s got direct access anyway.

Wispy2891@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 07:39 collapse

Yes the stores are filled to the brim with low effort mobile games ad viewers

SaraTonin@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 08:55 collapse

What I mean is I know that a lot of things done online in China are done with WeChat, including it being something that some apps run in. If the same is true for what’s being discussed here, then the Chinese government doesn’t need people to prove their ages first, because they already have that data.

DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 13:16 collapse

WeChat seems to be invite-only, at least the last time I messed around with it.

You pretty much need to know someone to even sign up for a wechat account. Because supposedly, WeChat was infested with scammer accounts so this is one of the ways to minimize fraud, because you need an account in good standing to open another one, and if you do shady stuff, the investigators can just asked whoever invited you for your real identity. And of course, privacy intrusion is always one of the goals, anti-fraud is just one way to justify their policies.

humanspiral@lemmy.ca on 17 Oct 00:58 next collapse

This is not pro oligarchist app store. So can only be slavery anti-consumer extortion.

The thing is… side loading becomes more important, and paying less from apps by any other system becomes encouraged. No one likes this shit, but media ignoring actual fascism, doesn’t mean it won’t hit us/them.

DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org on 17 Oct 01:14 next collapse

I’d say ‘good luck forcing this on PCs,’ but given handheld PCs would technically count as ‘mobile devices,’ doesn’t this mean desktops and laptops will get ensnared in this as collateral damage too? Like, are you going to have to show ID just to download an exe in Windows or run a sudo apt install (program) or equivalent command in Linux now? Assuming Windows non-S and Linux aren’t banned and PCs aren’t restricted to only running Windows S so you have to use a corporate app store on PCs in Texas like you do on Android or iOS devices?

Also, given this law might effectively kill F-droid and other alt app stores, and Google themselves wanna kill F-droid and other alt app stores, I wonder if Google did some lobbying to get this passed.

Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 02:20 next collapse

Freedom loving shitheads. The freedom to do as you are told. What a bunch of sheep.

thax@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 17 Oct 13:53 next collapse

Doublespeak has always been their bread and butter, like “trickle down”. Add the mindrot of “faith”, and bang, you have the reigns. My birth family ate that Reagan-era shit up.

edit: heh, I didn’t notice your username until after

fort_burp@feddit.nl on 17 Oct 18:10 collapse

“The slave who cannot organize his own revolt deserves no pity for his fate. He alone is responsible for his misfortune if he believes his master’s false promise of freedom. Freedom can be won only through struggle.”

  • Thomas Sankara
scintilla@crust.piefed.social on 18 Oct 03:32 collapse

Does the context make that better? As it stands that sounds like something Kanye would say.

fort_burp@feddit.nl on 18 Oct 04:03 collapse

XD omg how embarrassing… Kanye and Sankara sound the same lmao

pastermil@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 03:10 next collapse

Wooo-weee! I’m smellin’ so much liberty! God loves 'Murica!

victorz@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 09:24 collapse

I could hear Morty screaming that wooo-weee, I really could.

anythingdull@infosec.pub on 17 Oct 11:43 collapse

Haha yeah, I heard it in Mr. Poopybutthole’s voice. A sentence I never thought I’d type.

Formfiller@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 05:39 next collapse

Tread on me harder daddy

TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 09:39 next collapse

Give me all your AI training data!

DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 10:04 next collapse

So… conservatives hate China so much, yet copies exactly what China does? 🤔

MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 10:11 next collapse

It’s projecting.

DupaCycki@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:59 next collapse

You don’t need an ID to download apps on your phone in China. The process is virtually identical to how we do it in the West.

FlyingCircus@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 14:18 next collapse

It’s wild how almost every bad thing in China is worse in the US now.

DupaCycki@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 15:16 next collapse

You’d be surprised how many of these “bad things in China” are US propaganda. I guess those millions spent on misinformation are paying off.

Katana314@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 17:51 next collapse

I think the limit for me was the articles about forced repatriation, where China had snatch squads sent into other countries to force people to return, even when they had broken no laws recognized by that country. Oh, and the Uyghur genocides, which multiple global newspapers have reported on.

I will accept “US Bad”. These days, any claim of a large empire being perfect should be treated with massive suspicion.

semperverus@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 20:10 collapse

Weird… You don’t have a .ml domain…

EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com on 18 Oct 07:03 collapse

Makes one think: if I’m going to deal with the same level (or worse) of authoritarianism as China, I might as well at least get the lower cost of living and better ability to be car-free that China has.

/this is rhetorical, not actually considering a relocation to China

ayyy@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 16:14 collapse

While that is technically true, do any of the “everything” apps have meaningful functionality without an account/ID?

RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 14:09 next collapse

Conservatives have taken up everything they claimed to hate 25 years ago. Go bomb dictators because the dictators are oppressive? Now they want their own dictator. Talk about how women and other segments of society in that country are oppressed? Now they oppress women and other minorities. Hate government spending? Proceed to piss money away at levels never seen before. Rail against government interference in private business? Proceed to meddle with and claim they will tell businesses how to behave. Etc. etc.

jali67@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 23:13 next collapse

They are Christian nationalists and many of them want authoritarianism.

FosterMolasses@leminal.space on 18 Oct 07:23 next collapse

Bot

DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works on 18 Oct 09:40 collapse

?

maskquerade@ttrpg.network on 18 Oct 10:29 collapse

Texans hate freedom.

They love being useful idiots, though.

TheProtagonist@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 11:51 next collapse

Orwellian surveillance dystopia.

NGC2346@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 12:41 next collapse

Hard no for me if this comes where i live, which is not the USA. Libre Phone and self hosting/loading will be inevitable in such a scenario, as tinfoil as this can sound.

fort_burp@feddit.nl on 17 Oct 18:04 collapse

This will just become an excuse to jail you, then. “Unlicensed radio broadcast” or whatever is the equivalent. With those kinds of brutish, authoritarian regimes, anyone of intelligence is a threat that needs to be disappeared, and that includes you poindexter with <checks notes> OsmAnd~ installed on their phone.

NGC2346@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 23:04 collapse

You and me are allies. Imagine 100 000 allies like us two in a jail for such petty reasons. What do you think would happen in such a scenario?

ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml on 18 Oct 00:00 next collapse

How many people in your city know what self-hosting even is, though? Is it anywhere near hundreds or even tens of thousands? I’d be shocked if it was even 1000 in my city. I’m willing to bet every single person in this thread has technical skills that far exceed the average person.

CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 01:01 collapse

How many people in your city know what self-hosting even is, though?

WAAAAAY more than you’re giving credit for

ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml on 18 Oct 01:15 collapse

I think you’d be surprised. The average person has trouble remembering to check a device is plugged in when they’re wondering why it won’t turn on. People generally don’t know what “hosting” means, let alone “self-hosting”, it’s far nerdier than you give us all credit for.

fort_burp@feddit.nl on 18 Oct 04:06 collapse

But if you live in a city of 300,000 people and 99% don’t know about self-hosting you still have 3,000 people who do. Unite!

ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml on 18 Oct 17:14 collapse

That’s if it’s as high as 1%, I’d argue it might be 0.1% or less. It is one of the nerdiest things.

fort_burp@feddit.nl on 18 Oct 04:09 next collapse

You and me are allies.

Hell yea we are. Let’s be real though, if we’re in jail we’re not doing shit. We have to stay out of jail to be effective.

Valmond@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 06:49 collapse

Gulags full of free workers!

It has been done before.

willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 18 Oct 06:59 collapse

We’ll just wait to be picked up.

Or not.

mhague@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 14:15 next collapse

Data brokers are allowed to buy data from the dark web after our data is hacked. I saw a 1 million fine I think?

App store owners will use this or that, which will get hacked, then our data will be bought up, and then it will be endlessly repackaged and moved around. That’s why you can’t remove your data using those scam services; the moment it’s moved to another broker it’s fair game again. You’ll never scrub your data.

Your insurance will know what apps you installed. Walmart will know what apps you installed. Police bypass warrants by leasing this data from corporations like Flock. Just add it to the pile.

rumba@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 14:57 next collapse

sounds like quite a pain to google/apple, I think they should just ban them until they change their minds

undefinedValue@programming.dev on 17 Oct 16:47 collapse

If this was Lithuania or Rhode Island I’m pretty sure they would, but both Apple and Google have massive presences in Texas, thousands of employees and many offices. It would not go well for them to “ban” them and have their assets seized and employees arrested.

rumba@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 18:31 next collapse

A man can dream…

dragonfly4933@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 17 Oct 23:14 collapse

Why would anyone get arrested? There is no requirement for a business to operate in Texas or for people in Texas. And it is almost a certainty that Google and Apple have clauses saying they can not serve anyone for almost any reason.

huquad@lemmy.ml on 17 Oct 15:03 next collapse

Well that fucking sucks. Can someone explain how this will affect those on GrapheneOS? I’m assuming it’ll only affect play store and proxy apps, e.g. aurora store. Any other way to get around this, or anything else I’m missing?

Keelhaul@sh.itjust.works on 17 Oct 16:01 collapse

I expect VPN + Aurora (or any other non Play store) will be enough to get around it

phoenixz@lemmy.ca on 17 Oct 15:25 next collapse

This in combination with Google closing down the android ecosphere, kinda says a lot, no?

pleaseletmein@lemmy.zip on 17 Oct 15:29 next collapse

Well, children might get the idea that it’s okay to slingshot birds at pigs if they’re allowed to download apps!

Johnny101@lemmy.world on 17 Oct 23:42 next collapse

Kids will grow up around the idea that there is no freedom and their superiors (e.i. the corrupt companies) have to decide their rights.

toynbee@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 01:23 next collapse

My dad, now passed, once said “I’m glad I won’t have to live in the world you kids are growing up in” (or approximately those words). He was primarily referring to privacy and rights, which I think were being directed by Bush at that time.

I was young and privileged enough that I had noticed a few worrying governmental trends but didn’t really feel myself affected, nor did I have much concern about the future. I now feel his words more impactfully.

(I know some of the prevailing sentiments on lemmy; I worry about our collective future but don’t resent my dad for his part in bringing me into this world. He was a good dad who provided me with a good life and set me up to continue that after he was gone and, even if that weren’t true, he couldn’t have predicted the world we’re in today.)

MourningDove@lemmy.zip on 18 Oct 03:59 collapse

I’m now saying the same thing. The future looks increasingly bleak.

maskquerade@ttrpg.network on 18 Oct 10:27 collapse

Yes, it’s going to be a downward spiral until we die.

It’s better to accept it and adjust accordingly instead of pretending things are going to improve.

spoiler

It’s only going to get worse because the average person is a moron with no self-respect or self-sufficiency.

architect@thelemmy.club on 21 Oct 00:29 collapse

I’m waiting for people my own age or older to insist to me it’s always been this way.

plyth@feddit.org on 18 Oct 06:37 next collapse

2025-03-13 Senate Received by the Secretary of the Senate

legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB2420/2025

It takes less than a year to lock things down.

maskquerade@ttrpg.network on 18 Oct 10:26 next collapse

Shithole state for morons and businessmen that don’t want to pay taxes.

fodor@lemmy.zip on 18 Oct 10:39 next collapse

Unclear if this would impact any app store that has no Texas or U.S. presence. Is Texas planning on blocking websites? It would be entertaining to see.

SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 10:51 next collapse

Rejoice, in time this will become the norm all over the world. You have all been driven into a trap that was carefully set so that it could snap shut at any moment.

semperverus@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 20:07 collapse

We could just… You know… Stop using smartphones

SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world on 19 Oct 20:52 collapse

To be honest, this won’t help much in such a case; they’ll come up with other gadgets, for example, electronic tattoos instead of a smartphone.

I know this is a bad example, but in short, what I wanted to say is that they will find a way to control us, and if people do not agree voluntarily, they will resort to violence.

NatakuNox@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 13:11 next collapse

Texas… The most free state.

abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 18 Oct 17:37 next collapse

Texas are gonna use this to find out who belongs to minorities they wanna target: Queers, Women, racial minorities.

Get a VPN.

ranzispa@mander.xyz on 19 Oct 00:59 collapse

How does a VPN help if you are entering your ID number?

PushButton@lemmy.world on 19 Oct 04:06 next collapse

You are not entering your ID if you are not in Texas…

abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 20 Oct 22:11 collapse

It means you don’t need to enter it. The OSA checks only come up if they think you’re in the UK.

Grabthar@lemmy.world on 18 Oct 20:16 collapse

So everyone’s going back to using only a browser?