When You Bed With Leftists Expect Leftist Reactions: California and Facebook


Zuckerberg.  Facebook.  Obama.  Taxes.

When you’re “cool with that” make sure you’re really REALLY cool with that.

Cause if you ain’t, life is a bitch!

California SB 242, proposed by Sen. Ellen Corbett, would force social networks like Facebook to allow parents access to their child’s account(s) and, more importantly, force all privacy settings to their maximum level by default. Parents can request that images or text be removed from any social network page “upon request … within 48 hours upon his or her request.”

Here’s the interesting part: any social network failing to perform these duties will get hit with a $10K fine per incident.

LOL.  I mean; LMFAO!

10k a pop.  Can you imagine what the folks at facebook.com are thinking as they read this news?

The details are incredible.  The chance of fraud unreal.

I just hope that Facebook can learn a valuable lesson here.

When you deal in the gutter with Liberal Leftists, expect those Liberal Leftists to ACT like Liberal Leftists!

Facebook to allow parents access to their child’s account(s) and…request that images or text be removed from any social network page “upon request … within 48 hours upon his or her request.

10k

$10,000

10,000 clams

per “clam”.

Go ahead Zuck, tell me how “cool with that” you are now!

Advertisements
9 comments
  1. nickgb said:

    When you deal in the gutter with Liberal Leftists

    Well, at least you’re not slurring the entire left…

    What does Obama speaking at Facebook have to do with this legislation?

    The details are incredible

    What does this even mean?

    The chance of fraud unreal.

    Why is fraud so much more likely here? Couldn’t there be an online complaint system? A tracking mechanism for showing compliance? Seems like there’d be almost no chance for fraud here.

    10k
    $10,000
    10,000 clams
    per “clam”.

    DMCA allows takedown of anything online with just a letter, and the penalties can be far more severe if the material is copyrighted. Is distribution of a child’s photo against the wishes of a parent so much less serious?

    • pino said:

      Well, at least you’re not slurring the entire left…

      Hmmm…I should have been more clear, I meant to smear the entire left….

      What does Obama speaking at Facebook have to do with this legislation?

      When you have the most Liberal Leftist in your house, AND your response to an increase in taxes is “I’m cool with that” it has everything to do with it.

      What does this even mean?

      It means the law is trying to legislate details.

      Are you a dad? Can you imagine a circumstance where you wouldn’t have access to what your kid was doing on line? And in the event you didn’t, you went whining to the government to help you be the dad?

      Why is fraud so much more likely here?

      Watch:

      Dear Facebook,

      Hi. My name is Pino. I am nickgb’s dad. I’d like you to edit my son’s account in such and such a manner. Please know, if you don’t, you owe me “10,000 clams per clam.”

      Love,
      -pino

      Is distribution of a child’s photo against the wishes of a parent so much less serious?

      What if the child WANTS the picture posted?

  2. nickgb said:

    When you have the most Liberal Leftist in your house, AND your response to an increase in taxes is “I’m cool with that” it has everything to do with it.

    But this isn’t a tax… I still say this has nothing to do with that.

    Can you imagine a circumstance where you wouldn’t have access to what your kid was doing on line? And in the event you didn’t, you went whining to the government to help you be the dad?

    So your daughter gets a twitter account and posts a compromising picture of herself. You don’t have the password, so what are you going to do about that?

    • pino said:

      But this isn’t a tax… I still say this has nothing to do with that.

      The idea that the federal government can just come in and do any old thing and you’re “just cool with that” IS exactly the same thing.

      Take away your liberty to the stuff you own? “cool with that”.

      Throw a $10,000 ticket your way if some parent can’t manage his kid? “cool with that”.

      So your daughter gets a twitter account and posts a compromising picture of herself. You don’t have the password, so what are you going to do about that?

      So your daughter is standing in line with you at the grocery line and says “dad, what the fuck?” What are you going to do about that?

      Parenting is tough. REAL tough. Running to the federal government to manage your kids is CLASSIC liberalism!

      By the way. What if your daughter is, say, oh, I don’t know….17. Can you explain to me how she has the where with all to decide she should have an abortion but can’t decide to post a picture that dear ol’ dad might not like?

      What if the picture isn’t her naked, but her with a black dude and dad doesn’t want his little princess dating a black guy? Does he get to take THAT down? Or maybe shes Muslim and is dating a Christian? How about that?

      This is horrible.

      • nickgb said:

        The idea that the federal government can just come in and do any old thing and you’re “just cool with that” IS exactly the same thing.
        Yep, so if the government decided to euthanize the mentally challenged, it’s exactly the same as taxes.
        You may have points in here, but your hyperbole completely destroys them. If you can’t see that there are different shades of government activity, which different levels of interference and necessity, then there’s no point in discussing anything.

        Parenting is tough. REAL tough. Running to the federal government to manage your kids is CLASSIC liberalism!
        First of all, I think your premise is overstated, there’s plenty of times when conservatives want their parenting duties handled by the state, too. It’s not liberal/conservative, it’s just stupid. But second of all, the parenting here is being done by the parent, the state just gives them the authority to exercise it. The state isn’t asking sites to remove photos, it’s simply saying that parents have the power to have the photos taken down. And if you disrespect that authority, there is a remedy at law.

        What if the picture isn’t her naked, but her with a black dude and dad doesn’t want his little princess dating a black guy? Does he get to take THAT down? Or maybe shes Muslim and is dating a Christian? How about that?
        Yes, I completely agree, it’s stupid. This law is stupid, and as a die-hard liberal I agree with that statement. The problem is that you decided to make an argument that this is about Obama, taxes, liberals, and fraud, without any real basis. You could easily make a good libertarian argument against this law, and I could make a good liberal argument against it. It’s a dumb law. But you can’t just lump everything you don’t like into a bucket called “bad” and then say they must be related.

  3. Moe said:

    pino – haven’t read my way down the thread yet, but right off the bat I gotta ask, what’s this got to do with ‘lefty, left’????

    • Moe said:

      Okay, I’ve read it now and have to agree with nick – It’s a dumb law to propose, but I’d say it’s a stretch to see anything ‘left’ about it. Stupid State legislators are constantly proposing stupid laws. FL just tried to make it a CRIME for boys to wear their pants too low. Really.

      • nickgb said:

        I just put a post up about a stupid proposed law in San Fran to ban circumcision. I assume that it can be characterized as liberal, as government regulation about medical procedures, and I think it’s VERY stupid. Pino, you should go to town on that one, just don’t lead with taxes and Obama…

  4. pino said:

    there’s plenty of times when conservatives want their parenting duties handled by the state, too.

    It’s a dumb law to propose, but I’d say it’s a stretch to see anything ‘left’ about it. Stupid State legislators are constantly proposing stupid laws.

    Oh, I agree! You have conservatives passing the same kind of nonsense. Think laws related to alcohol, prostitution, drugs and marriage. And to the extent that Republicans act like Leftists, I call ’em out on it 😉

    If you can’t see that there are different shades of government activity, which different levels of interference and necessity, then there’s no point in discussing anything.

    You are, of course, correct. There ARE things the government can and should do. Taxing being one of them. We’ve long ago left that place however and now we’re somewhere else completely.

    The larger point is, however, that these young stupid uber-rich kids [and grown adults sometimes] lead with their head and just get along to get along with the Democrats and the Liberals. It’s easy EASY to spout the populist message and just make friends everywhere you go. 26 and a billionaire? President in your office? He wants to take more of your money for no defendable reason? You “cool with that”? It’s much harder [trust me] to stand for the things you know make the place better even when it’s the hard thing to say. It’s hard to say we have to cut back. It’s hard to say that giving money to people who won’t work isn’t a good idea. It’s hard to say that people should save for their own retirement because by promising ’em ice cream and lollipops creates wrong incentives. Well, check it out, the mind set of that Liberal isn’t limited to taxes; it’s a mindset that encompasses much MUCH more.

    If I had posted a story about a college professor who wanted to redistribute grades from the A’s to the F’s, it would be making the same point.

    Conversely, if instead of using this man boy and his “I’m cool with that” I had instead decided to go with someone who supported taxing oil company profits for green reasons, the point would be the same as well. Sometimes it takes an extreme example to point out subtle nonsense.

    It’s a dumb law to propose

    It IS dumb. And it has it’s roots in the same primordial mud that much of the legislation from the left is based on. There is very little theoretical difference between this and forcing someone to buy health insurance. Or, even better, forcing ME to pay for HER health insurance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: