I mean, sure? But that's rather broad and does not really pertain to the topic at hand which is potentially (or outright) privacy-breaking legislature enacted and enforced on technology in the name of protecting childeren.

"Almost certainly," is just you assuring it is so. Nothing in the legislation itself demands that.

I think "liberal" is the opposite of "authoritarian" and "left" is the opposite of "right". America has never really done left wing and the liberals are more lib centre than lib left, whilst the conservatives are auth right. American "centrists" are loony right wing by European standards. Tankies are auth left, so find liberals annoyingly non-left and annoyingly non-auth, which is why they have so much to say against dems, whilst the gop is to a tankie at least auth even if they're annoyingly right wing.

I will never understand why tankies act like the last 50 years of Russian history including the complete overthrow of communism never happened. It's like they kept the worst bits of the soviet approach, threw out all the good bits and added the worst excesses of uncontrolled capitalism instead.

As a lib left, I find much to disagree with in all those places, but most strongly with the auth right like trump, putin and their chums.

I'm very very disappointed with UK Labour trying to fix the housing crisis by deregulating to "free up" the housing industry to remove the housing shortage. It's like trying to fix an active alcoholic by giving them the keys to the liquor cabinet. You'll only fix the housing crisis with a massive program of council house building. Anything else is papering over the cracks. You'll only fix the NHS by bringing social care under the same funding roof and investing massively.

China gets some things right like massive public investment and very long term planning, but other things wrong like authoritarianism. I'm amused that Trump thought he could outsmart a civilization that's been doing diplomacy for thousands of years and has largely (but definitely not exclusively) been a meriticracy for a very long time.

Some of the Scandinavian democracies have been the best run countries for a long long time.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll find plenty to hate on there.

What are you trying to argue? Non-liberals will demand liberty from intrusive imposition of age verification? What do we call these advocates for social liberty? With which major US political ideology do they belong if they had to choose?

The politically illiterate US population uses every term and definition wrong.

You must be speaking of yourself: now you're disagreeing with political scientists & historians. The linked article cites definitions & references from both.

The political spectrum article

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".

Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.

reaffirms political scientists consider progressives & social liberals on the left.

Also they are relative

Not entirely: words still mean things.

Progressivism: ideology

that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform.

Social liberalism:

variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights

social liberalism places greater emphasis on the role of government in addressing social inequalities and ensuring public welfare

So back to modern liberalism in the US: what has it endorsed & pursued?

The modern liberal philosophy strongly endorses public spending on programs such as education, health care, and welfare.

What are these if not social reforms to advance the human condition (ie, progressive policies)?

It combines ideas of cultural liberalism, social liberalism, progressivism, civil liberty and social equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy

Important social issues during the 21st century include social justice, economic inequality (wealth and income), voting rights for minorities, affirmative action, reproductive and other women's rights, support for LGBT rights, and immigration reform.

What is the support for mixed economy & these issues if not the definition of social liberalism?

Are you claiming any of that has much to do with "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" that characterize the right? They seem to have an awful lot more to do with "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" that characterize the left.

It's time to face reality & admit the facts don't support you.

all I’ve heard from so-called US ‘liberals’ was nearly as horrible and right-wing as the rest

Then maybe you don't know many liberals.

overton window is so narrow it only goes from fascist to center-right

Regardless of what you think, people in the libertarian left of the political map exist in the US, and there are only 2 major ideologies there to choose from.

Modern liberalism is one of two major political ideologies in the United States, with the other being conservatism.

They're not throwing their lot in with conservatism. That really narrows down the possibilities.

Only facts can be right or wrong.

Opinions (such as that the Earth is flat) can obviously be wrong. Facts cannot. Look up the definition of fact.

Anyway, I know there are applications that don’t have binaries, but most do. I am not a lawyer, but if I’m not mistaken, source code is under U.S. law protected by the first amendment while binaries are not.

You admit applications are not necessarily binary, the law does not mention binary or source code or anything like that where it defines applications. You are just grasping at straws to justify an indefensible position, that whoever possesses a binary is it's owner.

Which is obviously untrue. Ownership of software means ownership of it's copyright. It's been made very clear in the last decades that you (legally) don't even own software that you pay for. You own a license to use the software.

You cannot argue, in good faith at least, that this is what is intended by the law. First it would be spelled out and secondly it would mean that for all applications, not just FOSS ones, the people paying the fines would be the users, $2500 for each app they install that's in violation. Which is obviously not what's intended.

I am not saying that the law is FOSS friendly. I am saying that the law does not cover all FOSS software despite it being the clear intend of the lawmakers to cover all software. In such cases it will have to be decided by courts (I believe courts still have this function for state laws), whether it also applies to FOSS software.

Unfortunately it does since it does not discriminate. If anybody that can be effectively prosecuted (i.e. US/California resident) takes your advice and takes it to court, he is getting fucked.

What I am saying is that the lawmakers clearly do not understand the topic they are trying to regulate.

No shit. That does not mean FOSS software is not affected. You also do not understand the topic or choose to not understand it because it's spells trouble for FOSS. But pretending everything is ok does not make it so. FOSS projects either need to implement it or make sure they isolate themselves from US/California jurisdiction.