The bigger problem IMO is the implication that a device/OS must have a defined “account holder” that is associated with an actual person with an age. Nevermind that there isn’t any verification happening that could de-anonymize a user or be breached - as an administrator, am I responsible for ensuring users only use a specific account with the correct age identified? What about google or apple? Are devices meant for children to be locked down so that new users or accounts can’t be created to circumvent restrictions?

This law is too vague to have any meaningful impact on child safety, and the implications behind it make future erosion of privacy far more likely.

Why do people keep sharing this as if it’s an achievement?

Newsom and his tech donors can go get fucked.

Israel is by its very construction an entho-nationalist state. I don’t simply advocate for freedom of religion, I advocate for the abolishing of all Jewish supremacist structures that makes up its government.

In my opinion it would no longer be recognizable as modern Israel, but they could keep the name if they’d like.

Then what is even the point of this rule? If historical Palestine becomes a single secular state with equal rights for all, and Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, then I’d be free to say ‘fuck yea let’s do that’?

“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”

Except the moderation rule feddit has implemented does not allow for this statement, unless you specifically say that jews deserve equal rights in a single-state solution - which is similar to those who respond to ‘black lives matter’ by saying ‘but all lives matter’. Saying ‘Palestinians deserve equal rights’ wouldn’t be necessary if equal rights were already afforded them, and the point of making that statement is to draw attention to the fact that they currently aren’t

This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.

Nobody who is advocating for Palestinian liberation uses the word “destroy” or ‘destruction’ when referring to the dissolution of Israel - I only ever see those words used by people trying to make this inference between anti-zionism and antisemitism. The only people who take statements of liberation as a threat against Jews are people who are collaborating or benefiting from the oppression Israel conducts in their name.

there is a very specific legal reason for that

A misguided or intentionally malicious reason, for what the effect of that law is. Codifying into law the conflation of Judaism/ethnic Jewish identity with zionism is itself antisemitic. Calling for the end of Zionism isn’t the same as calling for the end of Jews or Judaism. What is the use of being allowed to criticize Zionism the ideology when you’re not also allowed to advocate for its end?

“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology.” <- Ok “Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel as a Zionist project should be dissolved in favor of a single-state that provides equal rights for Palestinians” <- Not ok, somehow?

The law as written only allows abstract and dissociated critique of Zionism, but forbids any criticism that comes too close to threatening Israel’s existence as a ethno-nationalist state. That’s a huge problem.

Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular

This part floored me. As if it wasnt Israel that was currently denying equal rights to Palestinians and not the other way around… this is just the zionist version of ‘all lives matter’ bullshit.