Facebook. There's a wave of child endangerment lawsuits incoming and they want to head that off at the pass by having governments shift all that liability over to the OS vendors.
These people have root access to all our webcams.
I don't think we can tolerate these entities to continue to exist.
Basically a mass-protest via network packets. Could we argue sending packets to a server is essentially a form of protest protected by speech similar to a public gathering?
On theirs: "Just for the sake of making the numbers work, have you tried putting in 'kill all the poor'?". https://youtu.be/s_4J4uor3JE
I am increasingly coming to recognize proceduralist liberalism as a suicide pact.
1. The OS vendor must provide an age bucket using the minimum amount of data necessary
2. App vendors (i.e. Facebook) must use the OS vendor's age buckets to determine age
The idea is that the next time Facebook gets hit with a child endangerment lawsuit, they can say "Well, we used the age buckets the government told us to, and they said the plaintiff was 18+, so we're not liable".
This, of course, assumes that most social media and Internet regulation will continue being targeted at children only, both because courts are reluctant to enforce 1A on laws that censor children[0] and because the current political class actually benefits from the harms Facebook does to adults. Like, a good chunk of government surveillance is just buying data from Google and Facebook.
[0] The root password to the US constitution is "th1nk0fth3cHIldren!!1" after all