Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#51

Post by strongpigeon » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

strongpigeon wrote: post #28

People here seem very against this, but I don't really see it. This only require to have a form asking about your age and provide an API to read it, right? Surely I'm missing something? Is the backlash due to fear of a slippery slope?

I am very pro social media regulation (with regards to age gating) due to the evidenced harm it causes, and which court cases have shown these companies are well aware of internally; with that said, this is an attempt by social media companies to shift liability to keep business as usual/status quo. This is no different than what oil companies have done, cigarette companies, chemical companies who have polluted at sc…

> This is an attempt by social media companies to shift liability to keep business as usual/status quo.

Do you mind expanding on why that is? Is it because it allows them to say "well the API told us they're adults so we're all good"?

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#52

Post by prmoustache » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

TheChaplain wrote: post #10

Curious how OpenBSD or Haiku will comply.

For what I understand, OpenBSD could just patch useradd so that the age category is mentionned in the comment field of /etc/passwd or a random text file in /etc.

Haiku could just run an automatic dialog asking you if you are minor, in Illinois or California and write a text file with the corresponding age category of said person.

These bills do not mandate that the user cannot modify that information AFAIK.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#53

Post by glitchc » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:39 PM UTC

The law as is written mainly targets social media platforms. For an OS to comply, all it needs to do is provide a field during account creation that records the user's date of birth as supplied by the user. There is no onus on the operator to confirm the veracity of this information, or even record it anywhere other than the local OS install itself. I think we're safe.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#54

Post by prophesi » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:41 PM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #42

prophesi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are software engineers who directly work for the platforms lobbying for this whom post here.

ICs don't matter. I can fire one and hire 5, and increasingly, the demographics on HN don't align with those who work in those organizations. HN is basically slashdot now.

> and increasingly, the demographics on HN don't align with those who work in those organizations.

People have been worried about that on HN for years, but I still see the same culture. There do seem to be more bots and astroturfing, but that's a systemic issue with all social media platforms today.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#55

Post by LooseMarmoset » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

jacobgkau wrote: post #18

mikestorrent wrote: post #3

I don't like this whole thing, but compared to what I was fearing would happen, this idea is nowhere near as bad. What I expected was that we'd end up with the OS vendors actually being mandated to really do age verification, and then submitting that using Web Credentials and Secure Attestation so that the far end could trust the whole thing, locking open-source OS's out of the mix and creating more of a walled garde…

Yeah, the laws in CA, CO, and now IL are essentially just mandating generally available OS's implement a standardized, local parental control system. Detractors will say parents should just install existing parental control software, even though it's existed in its current form for decades and is obviously not effective. And they'll say it should be the parents' responsibility to enforce what their kids are doing wit…

> The arguments I've heard against it are almost all slippery-slope (e.g. "they're gonna do this first, and then add ID requirements next year, because that's what I fear will happen.")

Because that's exactly what will happen. This is battlespace preparation for the destruction of anonymity on the internet, because politicians find this inconvenient.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#56

Post by dormento » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

jacobgkau wrote: post #18

mikestorrent wrote: post #3

I don't like this whole thing, but compared to what I was fearing would happen, this idea is nowhere near as bad. What I expected was that we'd end up with the OS vendors actually being mandated to really do age verification, and then submitting that using Web Credentials and Secure Attestation so that the far end could trust the whole thing, locking open-source OS's out of the mix and creating more of a walled garde…

Yeah, the laws in CA, CO, and now IL are essentially just mandating generally available OS's implement a standardized, local parental control system. Detractors will say parents should just install existing parental control software, even though it's existed in its current form for decades and is obviously not effective. And they'll say it should be the parents' responsibility to enforce what their kids are doing wit…

The parents can already do that. Its called "parenting". The fact that they won't even though there are (non-required!) tools they could be using to do so is baffling to me.

> if the kids lie during setup, it's on the parents

Pretty much a "Yes, and?" scenario. See above.

> The arguments I've heard against it are almost all slippery-slope (e.g. "they're gonna do this first, and then add ID requirements next year, because that's what I fear will happen.")

I get where you're going, but precisely this. These things always start slow... then fast. The old adage "first they came for x, then y" is not a joke or an exaggeration. It is pretty much historic observation. I've lived long enough to know that whenever someone invokes the "think of the children" defense, there's always a catch.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#57

Post by richwater » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

strongpigeon wrote: post #28

People here seem very against this, but I don't really see it. This only require to have a form asking about your age and provide an API to read it, right? Surely I'm missing something? Is the backlash due to fear of a slippery slope?

I am very pro social media regulation (with regards to age gating) due to the evidenced harm it causes, and which court cases have shown these companies are well aware of internally; with that said, this is an attempt by social media companies to shift liability to keep business as usual/status quo. This is no different than what oil companies have done, cigarette companies, chemical companies who have polluted at sc…

Purdue sold less than 4% of the prescription opioid pain pills in the U.S. from 2006 to 2012. They were a scapegoat for pill farm doctors and an incredible lack of personal responsibility from prescribers, pharmacists and patients.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#58

Post by tyre » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:42 PM UTC

Lerc wrote: post #49

Slow_Hand wrote: post #7

If I’m not mistaken, Meta has been lobbying heavily for all of these age-verification bills lately. It seems their strategy is to externalize their responsibility to verify age themselves, and thus reduce their exposure to liabilities when child protection acts like COPPA are violated.

How should they do it? Surely they don't have a responsibility to do something that nobody knows how to do? There have been numerous cases in history where governments have attempted to legislate the outcome they want without regard to how that might be done or if it was possible in the first place. Obviously it can never deliver the results they want. It would be like passing a law to say every company must operate…

They could require government ID to sign up and an adult sponsor to certify accounts for kids. Plus a limit on how many accounts an adult can sponsor.

It would be a mess, but solve the problem. It’s not that we don’t have the technology, we just don’t want to because the friction would decimate user numbers and engagement; it would be much simpler to regulate (e.g. usage limits on minors); and minors are less monetizable, which would lead to lower CPM on ads.

Then there’s the legal liability if you know someone is a minor and they’re sending nudes, for example. And the privacy concerns of tying that back to de-anonymized individuals.

But obviously I wouldn’t believe that social media companies care about user privacy on behalf of people.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#59

Post by thoughtpalette » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

1970-01-01 wrote: post #32

The "one weird trick" that all government hates? Stop forcing OSes to function with accounts. "User account" is an artifact of UNIX. You don't need an account to start a car, send and email, nor boot an operating system. I know it's hard to grasp, but it's true.

Growing up, I vividly remember user accounts being important for our families personas on Windows XP. There's definitely a place for them, but there should be an option to not use one.

Unless your specifically calling out accounts that require online registration for the OS. I'm vehemently against that requirement.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#60

Post by gruez » Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

hypeatei wrote: post #36

Slow_Hand wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, I’m surprised that for all of the discussions on HN around these individual statewide acts that I see so little discussion of Meta as a primary force pushing them.

Why does it matter specifically that Meta is doing it? This has long been a goal for intelligence apparatus and big tech: get rid of anonymity online to "fight terrorism" and sell ads respectively. Don't get me wrong, it's good to know but it's not earth shattering information.

>Why does it matter specifically that Meta is doing it? This has long been a goal for intelligence apparatus and big tech: get rid of anonymity online to "fight terrorism" and sell ads respectively.

How does getting the OS to do age verification "get rid of anonymity online" or help "sell ads"? Assuming the verification is implemented in a competent way (ie. it's not just providing an id scan for any app to read), it's probably one of the more privacy friendly ways to implement age verification, that's also more secure than an "are you over 18" prompt on every website.