• Archr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    This is just the slippery slope argument.

    The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.

    • RandallFlagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      California, as of today, does not require any kind of verification to install an OS (how it’s always been).

      This law gets passed, now they require “attestation”.

      A year or two from now, they’re gonna push for for actual age verification.

      A year or two after that, the government will make a new law saying that your drivers license is no longer a valid form of identification, they’re gonna need a retina scan or some other form of “bio” identification.

      Next thing you know, you’ll be pressing your dick imprint on your PC’s automated Cock-Scanner-v4 encryption tray that pops out of your laptop like a cd-rom drive every time you need to check your email.

      Slippery slope, indeed.

      • Archr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Can you provide any sources for these? Maybe a california legislator saying they plan to do this? Or a proposed law? Otherwise it is just the slippery slope fallacy. While that doesn’t disprove what you said it does not provide a valid argument for it either.

        • 0x0@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Are you pre or post 9/11? It is very obvious that the slope is slippery.

        • ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Non-fallacious forms can also exist. It is fairly obvious that it is warranted in authoritarian regimes to expect progression (regression?).