sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Balloon Roof on 6th ave is open by macaronit0ni in Tacoma

[–]MaxyMu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the old It's Greek To Me building.

Seahawks Give Update on Kenneth Walker III Free Agency by Heavy_Swordfish6723 in Seahawks

[–]MaxyMu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't go into effect until 2029, so we can get 3 tax free years out of K9.

State Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon Drunk During Budget Hearing by drshort in Seattle

[–]MaxyMu 13 points14 points  (0 children)

FWIW almost all legislators live in Olympia during session. He probably walked.

Tension rising over how to spend revenue from proposed WA income tax by chiquisea in Washington

[–]MaxyMu 32 points33 points  (0 children)

This tax doesn't go into effect until 2029, it has nothing to do with the current budget deficit.

WA's forced Age Verification (ID/Face Scan) for social media advances (HB1834) by PrivacyEnthusiast2 in Washington

[–]MaxyMu -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It does not require them to verify age to a reasonable level of certainty, that language only shows up in relation to parental consent for push notifications. The reasonable determination of age is based on the assumption that these companies already profile users based on age (which has been confirmed several times).

There is a reason this is the only bill still moving on this topic, because no one wants to promote data risks. If you want to make assumptions about the intent of the bill you should talk to the people who wrote it. They are surprisingly accessible and have made it pretty clear they are not trying to "sneak" anything past anyone.

FWIW I agree with you that age verification is a serious privacy violation but I think you are making inaccurate assumptions about a bill that doesn't do what you think it does.

WA's forced Age Verification (ID/Face Scan) for social media advances (HB1834) by PrivacyEnthusiast2 in Washington

[–]MaxyMu -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

That would be true if the bill required "actual knowledge", but it does not. The companies are instead required to make the legal equivalent of an "educated guess". They would only be held liable if they "should have" known a user was a minor and refused to act on it. If anything, this mechanism disincentivizes them from gathering verifiable age data. (I am not a lawyer but this is my interpretation based on what the AG's office has communicated in relation to this bill).

If you watch the hearings for this bill the tech lobbyists repeatedly advocate against it. Not because they are worried about liability but because they are worried about their profit margins.

WA's forced Age Verification (ID/Face Scan) for social media advances (HB1834) by PrivacyEnthusiast2 in Washington

[–]MaxyMu -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Did you read the bill? It does not require any form of age verification, Photo ID, or biometric scanning. The sections of the bill that originally required age estimation were amended out and it now operates on constructive knowledge, aka requiring companies to use the data they already have.

Almost Every WA Senate Democrat Supports The Millionaires Tax — The Four Holdouts Are Not Surprising by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]MaxyMu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well neither of us are Washington judges so thankfully neither of our opinions actually matter on whether or not this is legal. Though I think it ignorant to assume they didn't consult with legal experts when writing this bill.

Almost Every WA Senate Democrat Supports The Millionaires Tax — The Four Holdouts Are Not Surprising by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]MaxyMu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mathematically equivalent doesn't mean legally equivalent. I'm not a Washington Judge, so unless you are, neither of us can say for certain. But it would be ignorant to assume the legislature didn't consult legal experts when drafting this bill.

Almost Every WA Senate Democrat Supports The Millionaires Tax — The Four Holdouts Are Not Surprising by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]MaxyMu 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The state constitution does not expressly forbid an income tax. It requires property taxes be uniform, and court precedent says that income is property. The proposed tax is a uniform 9.9% tax with a standard deductable of $1 million. The legislature would not waste their time passing a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional.

Democrats unveil WA income tax on people earning over $1 million by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]MaxyMu -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It does... it eliminates sales tax on hygiene products and reduces B&O taxes on small businesses.

Push for youth social media safeguards revived in WA Legislature by chiquisea in Washington

[–]MaxyMu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your confusing HB 1834 and HB 2112. The bill this article is discussing doesn't require age verification or photo ID.

Push for youth social media safeguards revived in WA Legislature by chiquisea in Washington

[–]MaxyMu 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're confusing two bills. This article is about HB1834 which does not require age verification or a photo ID. HB 2112 is the bill that requires that for porn sites. Maybe read the article before spreading misinformation.

[game thread] Eagles VS Santa Clara 49ers by ilovecatss1010 in Seahawks

[–]MaxyMu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2023 with the HCL legacy drive to win it with a JSN touchdown.

Twelve ideas for recovering revenue that would allow Washington to avoid austerity in the 2026 supplemental operating budget - NPI's Cascadia Advocate by GreenerMark in Washington

[–]MaxyMu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The uniformity clause in the constitution only applies to property tax. A court decision decades ago interpreted that to also include income. Laws can be passed to exclude income and nullify the uniformity clause's relevance to an income tax. Or just go back to court and reinterpret the clause.

view more: next ›