Transcription
Hello guys and gals. Me Mudahar and it's a messy day today. You know, there's been a lot of age verification laws that have just start started to come in. You know, honestly, I didn't expect to make so many videos in such a rapid amount of time, but honestly, this situation has advanced so rapidly that it's blowing my mind. It's actually difficult to be on top of everything over here. So, I want you to just excuse me a little bit cuz this video is genuinely going to be messy. You got a lot of [ __ ] to talk about and uh there's a lot of truth bombs that I need to drop on some people so that you know you don't listen to the to the shitty silver tonged politicians.
But ladies and gentlemen, you know what? We got to fight back. It's it's very easy to fight back. All you got to do is pick up your phone, pick up a pen, grab a keyboard, write an email, [ __ ] the [ __ ] out of your senators, your your congressmen, your congressw women, everything you can to get things changed.
Now, today we're looking at something known as HR7757, the Kids Act. Now, of course, you might be like, "Well, this sounds pretty good on paper, the Kids Act. It's it's designed to keep those kids safe on the internet." Mm- We're going to look closely at this bill and actually going to we're actually going to point out the actual parts of this bill that are actually so weak to the point that it actually doesn't protect kids as much as it protects companies like Facebook, companies like Tik Tok, and even gives them a little leeway to grab your information without really any [ __ ] repercussions.
So, to give you an idea, a lot of people that have actually been in the game of protecting children have said that both Copa 2.0 know and the kids act needs actual fixes before they can protect the kids online. So of course understanding the Senate actually passed both of these things literally like a day ago from my understanding and uh again they have to say this on on regard to this Congress's right to strengthen online privacy protection for teens. I do tend to agree. You know, COPA was designed to basically prevent the underage children in our society, minors, from losing their information on the internet. It was basically a data protection policy, which a lot of sites like YouTube, for instance, had to comply by basically saying, "Hey, listen. If you're under a certain age, we literally can't collect information on you. It would be wrong." And I do tend to agree that these kind of protection laws should actually not just be for kids, but actually also for adults as well. We need like a version of GDPR, for instance, over here in North America, whether you're in Canada, whether you're in the United States, whether you're in Mexico. If you're in the great come zone, then you need to be having your data protected. Simple as that.
So, when it comes to the kids act, uh it's actually a step backward for online safety. It is the latest latest Frankenstein's monster of good and bad children's online safety proposals. After making drastic improvements to the KOSA, the committee undermined its own progress by combining this legislation with other bills that take more controversial and restrictive approaches uh such as age verification measures and a blanket ban on ephemeral messaging to children.
So, look, even the people that are [ __ ] on the side of this case, like even people that normally I would disagree with, they're even like, it doesn't really even do enough. If anything, it actually does less than what we expected. So, you can actually read this bill for yourself, HR7757, the kids act. And there are some key highlights. For instance, now according to this, uh, it has the relationship with this to state law. No state or political subdivision of a state may prescribe, maintain, enforce or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation requirement, standard or having or other provision having the force and effective law to the extent of such law. Rule regulation requirement yada yada yada directly prohibits ephemeral or direct messaging on a covered platform. Regulates parental direct messaging control on covered platforms for teen covered users. Now the issue that people have over here is that certain states may actually have better laws. What is actually happening over here is a federal law is overseeding the state law and the federal law doesn't actually seem to be strong enough. So this is actually one red flag that a lot of people have had. Right.
The other situation that comes out of this is addressing the harm to minors. So for instance, a provider of a covered platform shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce reasonable policies. Very important to remember that word practices and procedures that address the following harms to minors. So here they reference threats of physical violence so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that such threats impact a major life activity of a minor. So violent threats, sexual exploitation and abuse, distribution of literal drugs and financial harm, so scams or you know deceptive practices that you know grab children of their money. So again they covered all of these four points which again I want you to remember right the reasonable policies mentioned here. The other situation that comes out is the terms no. Now no or nos means to have actual knowledge or to have acted in willful disregard. So, the reason why I wanted to point out these specific mentions is that for a lot of individuals that were actually looking deeper into this law, it turns out that these are actually weaker than whatever the state would have brought in to begin with. For instance, the actual covering of harms is physical violence, exploitation, narcotics, financial fraud, and it actually drops a lot of references to things like mental health, which better in mind things like depression and anxiety, suicidal thoughts, for instance, were the reasons that, you know, a lot of these laws were introduced. Kids would access the internet, they would scroll through social media feeds, get depressed, or they would get cyberbullied. A lot of these mental harms aren't necessarily brought in. If anything, it seems like it's loosened up to the point that it doesn't accurately target what these people wanted these laws to do to begin with, which pisses not just the people that wanted extra, you know, age verification and child protection, uh, but it also just pisses off people that have to deal with the consequences of this [ __ ] on our actual stuff without seeing any of the real tangible benefits.
Now, the other thing that actually mattered the most here was things like duty of care, which basically eliminates the duty of care uh with the term reasonable policies, practices, and procedures. So, again, while it sounds incredibly reasonable on the actual surface, a lot of individuals say that that basically could just mean that platforms like Facebook or Tik Tok literally just have [ __ ] written written down like a compliance document and basically have it sitting around somewhere. The other thing that also came out was that knowledge standard which is why I talked about you know willing knowledge like I actually brought that exact quote up because for instance knowledge itself actually having knowledge or willful disregard actually allows a lot of these platforms from my understanding and mind you nothing that I'm saying here comes from a legal background. It's just me being really really really hyperfocused on this entire topic. Again if a lawyer wants to correct me please feel free. I've read this from other senators and other legal experts as well. So for instance, things like collecting your information, a lot of that stuff where like they're capturing your age data, they're capturing a lot of these platforms do something which is known as strategic ignorance, which I think a great platform for instance is something like Roblox where it turns out like thousands upon thousands of children have been basically like groomed on that platform or have actually encountered some danger. And when it comes to things like, you know, again, strategic ignorance, basically these platforms will only do the bare minimum. And if there actually is something going on, it's not as if these platforms spend any extra resources, you know, tangible resources to actually address these problems. It's really mostly an after the fact where we just start collecting IDs or we start verifying platforms and users and uh you know, nothing really ends up coming out of there. the same level of kids constantly keep getting groomed even with or without these changes.
So ultimately what's funny about it too is that obviously there's a lot of people that have actually even written this law written this rule. So this is back in December 5th, 2025. For instance, even the people behind this law, for instance, uh Blumenthal, for instance, the senator that wrote this actual law or introduced this argued that without that duty of care provision, lawmakers are enabling major tech companies and shying away from actually holding them accountable. But it remains hopeful that both of these guys can figure out some compromise bill and see a renewed attention to the issue as it progresses. Totally caving on the duty of care is an actual abdication. There has to be some duty of care so the big tech guys will recognize its responsibility and the house surrendering is simply a sign of big tech's power.
Again, this is an interesting bill because on the surface it almost sounds like it's perfect, right? Like the kids are going to be totally safe. There's always going to be provisions in place to protect them. But here's the thing. A weak federal bill is actually ideal for a lot of these big tech companies. Like if you haven't been following for years now, Facebook has actually been on the battle lines trying to get places like Apple and Google to basically be responsible for age verification and age attestation. They basically said, "Listen, put the blame on the [ __ ] people distributing the applications. Let them do the hardline [ __ ] and you know, basically don't look at us." Which I think is kind of [ __ ] because they're ultimately the people that run the platforms with or without the application. and you can access Facebook. Okay, simply putting the blame on the app hosters, the app marketplace is not a good idea because ultimately it burdens everybody. People don't use Facebook. Okay, not everyone in the world uses Facebook. A substantially large amount of people do use the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store. Putting all of the limitations on that and basically throwing everyone under the bus is not the responsibility. It's not something that should be happening to me or you. it should happening it should be happening to people that are running Facebook or anything meta related right so to speak.
So for instance, what's really interesting about it to me is even in places like Florida a lot of these bills are getting introduced where they're talking about age verification and attestation and what's interesting over here is that one thing that I find super funny from people that are like sharing the slop is that a better alternative to social media bans and government overreach is ensuring parents are given stronger tools to oversee their child's online activities this year Utah, Texas, Louisiana passed the App Store Accountability Act to strengthen parental controls by requiring app stores to be held accountables and giving parents authority over what their children can access on their device. Now, I don't understand these [ __ ] laws in particular. It obviously comes from these people using iPhones, which is why they're jumping onto terms like App Store instead of Play Store. But here's the thing, right? Like, from my understanding, typically you can make an Apple family, like you can make a parent iCloud account. And if I want to make my kid an iCloud account, I make an account. I put it under my iCloud's name and then whoop look at that. I can actually monitor exactly what my kid downloads or doesn't. The actual the actual like technology and safeguards are there. I feel like parents who are [ __ ] trying to get the state to baby you have literally put no effort no effort in my opinion into actually analyzing these laws, actually analyzing these platforms. We have had parental controls for [ __ ] decades now. When I was a kid, my parents put the passcode on the naughty channels, okay, after a certain hour, you know, trying to watch Family Guy in my house wasn't happening. My parents looked at an age rating, said, "Hey, listen, that's above, you know, that's like PG-16 or whatever the hell it was in Canada, anything before that." Kids want to watch some Teletune, they can before like 7:00. That's when all the adult shows come out or the suggestive shows come out and then they started to block that. You know, of course, there were [ __ ] like Vchip. There was parental controls on basically most operating systems. You know, there was to a point that even when it came to the router level, a lot of routers, at least in Canada, were taught at least my my dad could figure out how to put the blocks on the domains. All right? So this is not something that parents are not they don't have access to is that most of the people that are letting the state govern them for their shitty actions have not put the effort into realizing that this stuff already existed. You know it's another thing too when you look at other laws. For instance, New York actually has the worst [ __ ] version of this law by the way too. So basically it requires manufacturers of internet enabled devices so phones, tablets, computers to conduct age assurance and determine the user's age category and provide all websites, online services, mobile applications on such users internet enabled device and or application store manufactured by the covered manufacturer with a digital signal that such user is a covered minor as well as the age category of such a covered minor.
So, here's why this is even wilder than it is. Okay, for one, like I said, under covering things like Linux almost impossible because there's so many distributions out there. But covering things like Microsoft Windows, covering things like Mac OS, covering iOS, covering Android, actually pretty reasonable because generally they'll go after the hardware manufacturer releasing their product in that state. So again, what's really scary about this, look, we talked about California shitty law and but California's law was actually a little more benign because they allowed you to just self-report. I could say that I was like 35 years old and it would just believe me. But according to guys like System 76 who make Pop OS, they've said that this proposed Senate bill that we just looked at requires adults to prove their adults to use a computer, exercise bike, smartwatch, or car because yes, everything is an operating system. And some of these devices come with bundled app ecosystems. You know, I didn't [ __ ] know this, but apparently in a Mustang, yes, a Mustang, there's an app store. All right. Could you imagine going up to your [ __ ] grandpa and telling him, "Yeah, the current generation of Mustangs. They're nice, but you got to be updating the onboard app store. Blow their [ __ ] minds." But anyways, uh to give you an idea, they actually have uh this to say. The bill explicitly forbids self-reporting and leaves the allowed methods to regulations written by the AG. So practical methods for the bill of such extreme breath would require in many instances providing private information to a third party just to use a computer at all.
So here is the issue right which we go down a Linux distribution downloaded from an internet could technically make the downloader the device manufacturer. They are the entity responsible for providing a freely distributed OS to the device. In practice this type of language is rarely enforced. Nonetheless, it highlights how laws written for centralized platforms like iOS and Android struggle to define who is responsible in open-source systems. So, actually, it's a really good point to bring out. Linux is really just tough to govern, right? How do you govern something that's freely like a modified? How do you govern an open-source project? But it is interesting when they talk about why privacy does disappear because it does. when you need to provide your ID to use a [ __ ] computer or an app store or anything, your privacy, your anonymity online disappears. And for a lot of people, for legitimate reasons, absolutely need that. You know, are you a journalist? Are you a reporter? Are you somebody that is living under a [ __ ] tyrannical regime? Do you want your privacy? I think everyone should be entitled to privacy. Okay? It's a very important thing for me. You know, I would never be comfortable ever purchasing a device or owning a device or owning a system where in order to do anything, I have to provide something. I know I live in that world, but I try to be as anonymous online as possible. I try to make it so that every account that I build online is as detached to my real identity as it logically can be. If I don't need to provide my ID, if I don't need to provide my billing information, if I don't need to provide my address, I don't. Okay.
But anyways, what is scary about these laws is how much they actually benefit the actual tech companies than they do the actual, you know, children or anybody. You know, think about it like this. We're going into the future where companies like Facebook are not responsible for doing any age verification. They're putting all the blame on Apple and Google. So now Apple and Google gap capture your age. They provide your age and sometimes they do it in a way where they provide brackets of an age like 12 years old, 13 to 14, 15 to 16, 17 and then 18 and above. So now people on the internet that are trying to find children can now probably break into certain one of these groups and target a whole bunch of verified individuals that are underage, which obviously can't happen. Age verification [ __ ] isn't perfect. But the other angle of this that I feel like people aren't really talking about too is that when you provide your identity to these organizations for a lot of companies like Facebook for instance, they can get access to age verification, age verification data even if they're not actually collecting it basically via the app signals or the API signals. Meta basically gets access to age characterized user data without actually collecting it themselves. You know what I mean? like they can simply ask the app store, hey, this person downloading it, what is their age range? So now they've got that extra piece of identification that they normally wouldn't have had. It's like collecting somebody's like birth date without actually collecting it yourself. You know what I mean? And there's a lot of stuff you can do with that. You can tag an account's age and you can see just how it grows older. You can feed it into its own set of algorithms that I think many people, if they realize how shitty these companies are, wouldn't feel comfortable about it. And again, a lot of these companies make their money through advertisements. And what is the best way to advertise is to hyper specifically target individuals. I mean, imagine being able to target a 14-year-old without legally knowing that they're 14 years of age or legally collecting that information themselves. It's weird because in a kind of way, it takes the it takes the defense of COPA and throws it out the [ __ ] window, right? You know, it's not like you're collecting age data for a minor, but you kind of are in a [ __ ] roundabout way.
Now, there's a reason why I tell you guys to use Adlock all the time. I don't shed a tear if you make me lose an extra buck here or there. It's not the end of the world. I'll still be fine. Um, again, I don't promote that because Adblock is against YouTube's terms of services. But the idea about advertisement, and this is what really pisses me off, is that when you when you don't use ad block, you are exposing yourself to ad trackers and networks all everywhere in the world. And the problem with all of that is that government agencies have found a way to surveil on you without breaking the law, without actually filing for a wire tap. is that a lot of these organizations, a lot of these federal governments, a lot of these federal agencies end up purchasing information from again shady data brokers for literally a dollar to $4 per users per year, which again for the government is like nothing, right? The government doesn't it doesn't matter. They'll spend billions of dollars a day on stupid [ __ ] But the government will purchase your information from a shady data broker that has harvested your personality from an actual set of ad trackers spread all the way around the internet. And through that, the government basically surveils you on a day-to-day basis. They watch everything that you do. They basically want to see where you're going in from. And of course, in some ways, they actually do this to figure out what your location is. So again, this is why I always say to use an ad blocker. And this is why I always say to fight against things like age verification. This is why I always say this [ __ ] is mass surveillance because that's what it is. There's no reason these or these people care about kids. If they cared about kids, these laws wouldn't be written in such shitty manners. They would actually be written for the protection of children. If they cared about kids, there would be more money put into actual awareness for current, you know, um current like um uh child protection systems on devices, parental control systems. There would be a lot of effort put towards educating parents for that. If you're a parent and you care about your kids, a lot of protections are already there. But you have to care about your kids. I don't think the state should be responsible for taking care of the children. I think that should be on the responsibility of the two people that have worked together so hard to bring those children into the world. If you're going to bring kids into the world, [ __ ] parent them. And if you don't want to parent them, then um you're a piece of [ __ ] But you being a piece of [ __ ] shouldn't be the reason why us living in freedom is now suddenly threatened.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you like what you saw, please like, comment, and subscribe. Dislike if you dislike it. I am out.