Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

agelesslinux.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 671 posts

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#551

Post by gzread »

curt15 wrote: post #538
lambda wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Facebook supports it doesn't mean it's bad. They may not support it for the same reasons, they probably just don't want the cost and liability of doing identify verification themselves and so want to make sure all of the cost and liability is on the OS vendor. Yes, the New York proposed law is far worse, and we absolutely should be pushing back against that. And Facebook doesn't care, because they only c…

It doesn't make sense to move this function to the OS because so long as the OS remains under the user's control, any signal from the OS has no value because the OS reports whatever the user wants it to report. At any rate, why legislate operating systems when all of the harm comes not from computers themselves but rather from certain websites? And there are already mature solutions for controlling access to specific…

The law acknowledges that. It doesn't require actual verification. That's why people are saying it's just a parental controls law and not an ID verification law.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#552

Post by gzread »

smsm42 wrote: post #272
pocksuppet wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The larger plan is probably to avoid banning social media for under-18s

Or get another source of demographic data and suppress smaller competitors who can't comply with onerous regulation.

I don't see how this regulation is onerous or hard to comply with.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#553

Post by gzread »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #462
lambda wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of the California/Colorado laws is to provide an alternative to that. The whole point is that it provides a privacy preserving way to provide a signal about whether someone is in a particular age bracket, without requiring any kind of third party ID verification. I am so puzzled by everyone who objects so strongly to these operating system based opt in systems; all it does is provide for a way for a p…

> I am so puzzled by ... Because it's inverted. If it's opt in on the parent's part anyway then there's no reason to send additional information along with the request. The service should rather send additional information about content categorization alongside the response. So what reasons can you imagine for it to be designed in such an obviously unnecessary way?

That design would require websites to have separate sections per age bracket.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#554

Post by throw10920 »

fwipsy wrote: post #502
throw10920 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many unjust laws on the books, and that will always be true: > If I prove this to you, will you then take your own advice and "take drastic action" to replace the US government? No. You didn't actually read my comments before responding, and you're fundamentally misunderstanding my position. That's not "my own advice".

Perhaps your comment didn't say what you believe, then.

It does. Read it again:

> Either you believe the system is just and you follow all the rules (and work through the system to changes the individual rules you believe are unjust) [...]

I believe the system is just. That does not change in the presence of those unjust rules that you listed above, because those laws can be changed and are changed regularly, and because they're not egregious enough to constitute a failure of the system.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#555

Post by gzread »

smithcoin wrote: post #208
jmcgough wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly skeptical of the findings, as the majority of the research and writing was done by Claude Opus. I'd be more likely to believe groups like AIPAC are behind this - they have poured a lot of money into online censorship legislation.

I saw this posting from here the other day about how it’s meta wanting to pass the buck to OS and browser vendors a la Section 230: https://web.archive.org/web/20260313125244/https://old.reddi...

Which doesn't mean that isn't the right place for the age to be set.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#556

Post by autoexec »

muyuu wrote: post #391
wredcoll wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you genuinely not remember being a child?

tbf, when most of those posting here were children, access to smartphones/tablets with unrestricted internet connection wasn't a problem but i do remember my parents actually raising me pretty hands-on, taking care of me not watching stuff I shouldn't be watching which of course existed and was easily available

Access to smartphones/tablets with unrestricted internet connection is only a problem today when parents give their children access to smartphones/tablets with unrestricted internet connections.

Cell phones and tablets don't spontaneously appear whenever a child wants one. Parents have the ability to hand devices over to children when they have time to watch them while they use it and remove those devices from them when they don't.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#557

Post by gzread »

fainpul wrote: post #394
somat wrote: post #193

It is a stupid law but I feel people are overthinking this. For compliance the os has to provide an age category to an application and an interface for the user to enter this data. We already have an api to provide information to applications. it's called the filesystem. and an interface to enter the data, that's called the shell. so everything is already there. If the user lives in california and wants to be complia…

You are underthinking this. You described a technical solution to comply with this law. Yes, that's easy. The problem is the legal implications.

What are the legal implications?

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#558

Post by gzread »

jacquesm wrote: post #172
Phelinofist wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the new Poettering startup took off you won't get any choice. SCNR.

I have all the choice I need, I can build Linux from source and I'm old enough to know this stuff will outlast me. F*ck Poettering. Want to bet that once he's done the damage his company will be acquired for a large amount of money by Microsoft? This is just another Nokia for them.

If you're unaware, the new Pottering company is about bringing Secure Boot and remote attestation to Linux. If you don't run approved systemd Linux, you won't be able to access banking websites. Now that's a real slippery slope.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#559

Post by nobody9999 »

huhntmoral wrote: post #523
freedomben wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it makes you feel better to turn people who disagree with you into cartoon villains, then more power to you. But you'll lose the debate because you will only engage in strawman arguments. There are real arguments in favor of this that should not be dismissed, but should be embraced and we should explain why those arguments are weaker than ours. I feel extremely strongly that this is a Trojan horse that will expand…

[flagged]

>No, the people in power do not have our interest in mind and anyone believing otherwise is an enemy, and I don't find them cartoonish at all, I find this all very very serious and terrifying, I will not comply.

Do your elected representatives support such legislation?

If the answer is "yes," and you live in a place that has free and fair elections, that's on you for not electing folks who will actually represent you.

Sure, feel free to blame the people you voted for. But since you and your neighbors elected those folks, it's hard to see how it's only the fault of those you elected.

That's not to say there aren't other forces/special interests trying to tilt things in their favor, but the solution is electing people who will have your (collective) "interest in mind," not blaming those you had a hand in electing.

In a representative democracy, the voters are the government. We decide who will represent us. If you don't like those that do, look in a mirror.

Re: Ageless Linux – Software for humans of indeterminate age

#560

Post by themadturk »

widowlark wrote: post #532
freedomben wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many kids do you have? What software do you use for this continuous monitoring? How do you balance spending 18 hours a day continuously monitoring your children, with also working full-time and being a human yourself? Please elaborate on your personal system because I think you could help out a lot of people. I am strongly against this age verification, I think this is an absolutely, catastrophically terrible ide…

having children is a choice. Therefore, the difficulty of that choice is not really a factor in our lawmaking nor should it be.

Is it, though? The trajectory right now is to remove the choice of parenthood. If some people in power have their way, it will not only be illegal to end a pregnancy, it will also be illegal to prevent it to start with. If a male and female have sex (and I doubt a sufficient number of people will give up having hetero sex), the result will often be a child, and there will be no safe, legal choice in the matter.
Post reply on HN