Fuck Me in the Hell

The laws, framed as a way to crack down on harmful content and make the internet safer, would force social media companies to enact invasive identity verification measures in order to keep children from accessing online spaces.

The problem is that there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are. A platform cannot magically discern that a user is 16 without collecting identifying information, whether through government documents such as a passport, payment information like a credit card, or other identity-disclosing data. Whether that data is stored by the platform itself or outsourced to a vendor, the result is always the same: a user’s offline identity is forever linked with their online behavior.

Stripping anonymity from the internet would constitute one of the most sweeping rollbacks of civil rights in recent history. It would allow for unprecedented levels of mass surveillance and censorship, endangering the most marginalized members of society. Whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing could be tracked and fired, government employees speaking out about illegal behavior or bad policies could face prosecution, and activists organizing protests could be identified and surveilled before ever setting foot on the street. […]

The push to eliminate online anonymity is ultimately a fight over whether the internet remains a space for dissent and free expression or further becomes a dystopian digital panopticon that operates as an arm of the surveillance state. A free society depends on the right to publish and consume information anonymously and to organize and speak privately. Age verification policies only bolster the power of Big Tech and give the government complete authority to surveil and censor online speech.

—

Google is switching from manifest V2 to V3

“As early as March 2025, this rendered some extensions—including popular ad blockers such as uBlock Origin—suddenly unusable, even though it was still possible to access them with a workaround.

By the end of June, however, even that will no longer work.

A future release of Chrome will block all add-ons still based on Manifest V2.”

There might be some other work arounds in the future

“Here’s what we know for sure: once the change goes live, there’s no going back.

It will be significantly more difficult to use ad blockers like uBlock Origin.

Doing so would require using developer settings and making changes that would make the browser less stable.”

The blocking of ad blockers isn’t a direct attack, but more of a side effect of switching to V3, though that’s what the company says

V3 is meant to be more safe and prevent rogue browser extensions from interfering deeply with a user’s system.

“Given that there have been repeated instances of extensions posing a serious threat, it’s understandable that Google wants to prevent that from happening.

The fact that it can also hamper ad blockers with the same move is just a bonus that Google is unlikely to be too upset about.”

1. Child safety that requires verifying the age of the child has been exploited before and it will happen again. This allows people to precisely target specific age ranges instead of being a hit or miss hoping to get a child. Look at YouTube kids from a few years ago.

I know everybody says not use reddit or wikipedia as sources but we all know that's where we go when we need information so here's this too

2. Prosecution for the perpetrators. If lawmakers actually care about the children, they need to buckle down on prosecuting the people who target children with harmful content or actions. Right now, I am seeing very little consequence for this behavior. If we prosecuted the pedophiles we already know about, and worked on hunting down new ones when they show up, they would be afraid to do anything in the first place.

3. This is not only a threat on everybody's privacy, but I personally believe it is also a threat to education. These laws are primarily focused on the private home and I have heard nothing about school or library computers. With the general age range system, schools could still provide the age range and be fine, but if you have to show a government ID card, credit card, or some other form of personal identification to all operating systems, how are schools and libraries used by the general public supposed to function without lying to the system which could get them in legal trouble? Also, this could make it so the government can decide children (and adults too) are not fit for viewing potentially disturbing educational content like history, sex ed, and any other subject they don't want us learning about. They would be able to block the content from the devices themselves. And even if they can't just through these laws, it is only a matter of time till they come up with a way to do so anyway.

4. I find it very suspicious that this is all going on at the same time big tech companies are trying to build data centers (or if we're being accurate, personal information storage centers).

5. I am going to get biblical here, so if you don't care about that (even though it is insanely relevant), skip this section. The Bible directly mentions a time where you will not be able to buy or sell without "the mark of the beast" which indicates participation in the beasts system.

Revelation 13:16-17 ESV

[16] Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, [17] so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

https://bible.com/bible/59/rev.13.16-17.ESV

(you can also look this up on Bible gateway because I think that link will try to get you to download the Bible app that I use)

This age verification law would prevent us from accessing our bank accounts, among other important accounts from our phones and computers unless we have a form of ID and participate in the system (which I can pull many other verses from revelation that almost perfectly describe the US system and other places in the world, which is terrifying, but that's for another post.)

6. Parents have an obligation to monitor what their children are watching and doing on devices, who they're interacting with, etc. The problem is, way too many parents have gotten lazy about this or believe the protections in place are enough so they don't have to put in the effort. I know kids don't like being monitored, but it's for their own good. Helicoptering isn't necessary, but having honest and raw conversations with your child about their Internet usage and being a safe space for them to come to if they have any problems or questions is imperative.

7. All these laws about protecting the children are putting the spotlight on children and bring more attention to them, putting them in the faces of the people who want to harm them. I have seen a lot of laws about "protecting the children" that are at their core, a severe breach of privacy and bordering on blatant personal information collection and/or identity theft. Not to mention heading towards surveillance that would infringe on free speech rights and put us all in danger of being victims of government overreach.

8. We can fight back. We can contact lawmakers, do research, spread information and our opinions, and make a big noise about our thoughts on this.

@d0esery @roxfox5 @youtube-privacy-union @hannahhook7744

I've blocked and reported them already but tagging staff here as well so hopefully this can be sorted before anyone actually falls for it.

🔒 Security Notification: Mandatory Account Verification Required

Hello, Creator,

Our automated security systems have detected a minor anomaly in your account’s authentication data. We have also received multiple reports from users regarding your recent posts.

To protect your content and maintain the integrity of the Tumblr community, we are requiring mandatory account verification in accordance with our 2026 Terms of Service.

📌 Current Account Status: Visibility Guard Enabled

To safeguard your profile during this process, Lurker Mode has been activated:

Your posts remain fully visible to you.

Temporarily hidden from the global dashboard, search results, and discovery feeds.

Note: This is a purely protective measure to confirm account ownership and secure your data.

🛠 Action Required

Please complete the secure verification process within the next 48 hours to restore full visibility of your content.

Our Commitment: COMPLETE HERE (CLICK)

Instant Restore: Once verified, your posts will be re-indexed into trending tags and search results (usually within 30 minutes).

Error Compensation: If this restriction was applied in error, we will immediately restore full access and credit your account with 2 weeks of premium features.

Tl;DR:

New York has passed a law that states ads featuring AI must be clearly labeled or else face fines of 1,000$ and up to 5,000$ for each violation

Ads for films, television, streaming, games or other works where synthetic performers are integral to the entire production.

Audio only ads with AI being used only to translate languages is also allowed

full article

“The legislation, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in December, went into effect on Tuesday, aiming to enhance transparency amidst the proliferation of AI-generated content across various media platforms, including social media and digital advertising.

The state law defines synthetic performers as "digitally-created media that appear as a real person," with the mandate applying to advertisements across all mediums.”

This is meant to protect consumers, protect creatives, and have responsible innovation

“Non-compliance with the new regulation, specifically the failure to "conspicuously disclose" the use of a synthetic performer, will incur a penalty of $1,000 for a first offence, escalating to $5,000 for subsequent violations.

However, the law includes specific exemptions.

It does not apply to advertisements for films, television programs, streaming content, video games, or other works where synthetic performers are integral to the entire production.

Audio-only advertisements and those where AI is solely used for language translation are also exempt.”

The legislation faced significant opposition during its passage through the state legislature last year.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) argued that it would harm advertisers by "injecting compliance uncertainty into the advertising process, burdening brands (and their agencies) who advertise in New York and undermining creative and technological innovation."

“A German court has ruled that Google is directly liable for what its AI search overviews say.

Previous case law shielding search engine operators from liability doesn't apply to AI overviews.”

“The Regional Court of Munich hit Google with a temporary injunction barring the company from spreading false claims about two Munich-based publishers through its AI-generated search overviews (case no. 26 O 869/26).

The court classified Google as a direct infringer because the "AI overview" is its own content, not just a list of search results.”

“Google's AI overviews had falsely tied two publishing companies to scams, subscription traps, and shady business practices for certain search queries.

According to the court, the AI mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn't appear in any of the linked sources.

The publishers sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, but Google didn't respond appropriately.”

The court argued that Google’s AI wrote all of these statements and claims about the business, many of which were based off of false information the AI still used

The court says that these words are googles words

Google built the AI, Google offered it to users, so Google owns what it produces, "because it alone has influence over the AI's offering and the algorithms with which the AI operates."

search engine liability doesn’t count

“The court also examined existing rulings from Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which gave traditional search engines and autocomplete limited liability.

The BGH had argued that search engine operators were only liable as indirect infringers because they merely made third-party content findable.

A proactive duty to check results would threaten how search engines work.”

This doesn’t count for AI overviews, since normal search engines just show you websites and doesn’t give you false information on them

AI overviews generate "independent, new, and substantive statements" by evaluating and combining content from various third-party sites. And only Google can check those statements, the court said, "at least by comparing the underlying third-party websites with its own statements based on them."

The court also noted that the AI overview is "by no means absolutely necessary" for using the internet.

Traditional search results already help users sort through information, the AI overview is just an extra feature.

Google says that the users should research better, gets thrown out in court

Google said that the users should have checked if the information was correct, but the courts went against that

The court said that the information on the AI “contained "a self-contained statement with independently understandable content and no reference to other possible interpretations or even unreliable content."

Studies show that users almost never click on sources in AI overviews, which supports the court's reasoning.”

This is like press law, where publishers are liable for teasers that are understandable on their own, even if readers never read the full article.

“The court also pointed to a protection gap. If Google were only liable for obvious violations, victims would have no real legal recourse when the AI makes false claims.

The third parties whose websites served as sources hadn't even made the statements in question.

So victims couldn't sue the sources, and under existing rules they couldn't effectively sue Google either.”

ai has no free speech

Google went for the free speech defense, saying that it’s the result of an algorithm

Saying "at most a secondary expression of an interest in being able to freely express one's opinion and beliefs."

Courts said this was based on untrue facts

“The White House met this week with tech companies and kids’ safety groups to try to shore up support for a package of bills that could ultimately preempt some state laws on artificial intelligence, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.”

“The effort is moving in tandem with a push by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to pass a clutch of kids’ safety and AI bills.”

The Monday meeting represents the latests action to block or replace state AI laws

“after several failed attempts by the Trump administration and congressional leadership.

And it comes less than a week after a separate, bipartisan preemption draft from Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) got a tepid reception in Washington.”

“Still unresolved is whether the White House would seek to block a wide swath of state AI rules — a goal the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have aggressively pursued since last year

or would focus on preempting state action on narrow issues such as verifying social media users’ ages.”

Jon Schweppe, a senior adviser at the conservative American Principles Project and an attendee at one of the White House meetings has said

(We also want to point out that Jon is a massive fan of age verification, even saying that if this package doesn’t go through, age verification will lose)

“The White House wants to get a deal done, and obviously preemption is an important priority for them that they’ve had since day one,”

“They understand that a robust kid safety package is how you get to preemption, so they’re just trying to piece together something that they think could actually get 60 votes,” Schweppe added.

Many kids safety groups want the guard act, a bill that would regulate AI chatbots in a bid to protect kids.

“The people said the White House gauged the advocates’ willingness to support a package that includes Blackburn’s Kids Online Safety Act and the App Store Accountability Act by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)”

“And others fear that the Trump administration plans to use the kids’ safety package as leverage to preempt a broader set of state AI rules.”

one conservative kids’ safety advocate has said

“Federal preemption is a normal part of our constitutional order, but it’s not normal to trade a kids’ safety bill — or series of kids’ safety bills — for anything broader than that, What we don’t want to do is make a trade on preemption that is going to block some future action that we need on the state level,”

According to five people who are familiar with these talks

Top White House officials meet with representatives from four kids safety groups to sell this new package

“The officials included Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Ryan Baasch, deputy director of the National Economic Council; and representatives from the offices of chief of staff Susie Wiles and first lady Melania Trump.”

“In addition to Schweppe’s American Principles Project, the people said representatives from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network and the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center were also present.”

(Also, the NCOSE has voiced their concerns over the KIDS act, which has caused Jon to talk about how it’s a tactical error, basically saying the package being their last shot for age verification. This just means some things are a bit rocky with support)

also meet with tech companies

“White House officials also met Monday with top tech companies to gauge their interest in pairing a kids’ safety package with a new preemption push, according to three people familiar with the meetings who were granted anonymity to freely discuss the talks. Representatives from Apple, Meta, Google and xAI attended the meeting, one of the people said.”

Nothing was agreed and was purely out of wanting feedback back

“Getting all the companies on the same page will be a challenge: Apple and Google have both opposed the App Store Accountability Act, while Meta has aggressively supported it at both the state and federal levels.

All the companies, however, have expressed an interest in preempting state laws around AI and other technologies, preferring a single set of federal rules over a patchwork of state laws they say slows innovation.”

https://fxtwitter.com/jonschweppe/status/2065146254456197541?s=46&t=D9wiDvG8fNalx6yOSgnTqw

call your representatives