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

Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

ilga.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 473 posts

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#281

Post by Dylan16807 »

gspetr wrote: post #275
Dylan16807 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

A), which is the status quo. I don't see any other option as realistic. B) makes things worse in several ways, but primarily by stifling innovation. Only large incumbents will have no trouble paying for the measures required to ensure compliance. There's also the cost of enforcement, which will likely have to be borne by the taxpayers. I don't think this is a good thing to spend money on. C) cannot be enforced, and a…

Option A isn't really the status quo. The status quo has a bunch of sites doing invasive checks and other sites region blocking users.

> Only large incumbents will have no trouble paying for the measures required to ensure compliance.

Oh my gawwwwwd. People trot this out any time any regulation is mentioned. Option B is a single easily accessible age category value. It's simpler than the status quo.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#282

Post by iamnothere »

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?

The government is not allowed to specify what your software you run on your local personal computer or how that software should work. This is a first amendment issue, it’s been defeated before, it will be defeated again. If this were ever upheld, you will immediately have legislation attempting to force OS makers to spy on users, add backdoors, and so on.

Edit: also, before the same jackass from the last few discussions on this mentions “muh ADA” again, the ADA has never been shown to apply to an OS in court nor does it mention anything about operating systems.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#283

Post by whalesalad »

Aunche wrote: post #69
spullara wrote: post #2

this is completely insane. we need some kind of constitutional amendment to get rid of all this kind legislation forever.

People are making way too big a deal of this IMO. This is basically the OS equivalent of that checkbox you click to enter a porn website that gets exposed to Meta, so they can claim that they did what they all the they could to protect children if they get sued by parents. Any determined kid would figure out a way around this, but I can see it stopping younger and less determined kids, and it's a useful tool for pare…

Microsoft has already made the installation of Windows a fucking nightmare with MS account requirements. Imagine when they are forcing every new device to not only have 50+ TOPS for Copilot, but also a tiny little internal mass spectrometer autosampler which will prick your finger as you login and analyze blood to carbon date the age of the user.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#284

Post by gspetr »

ezfe wrote: post #136
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.

Is there a problem with this? Most users are using an iPhone and most iPhones already know the accurate age of their user

People will just forge IDs with LLMs. This measure is basically unenforceable, and wastes everyone's time and money.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#285

Post by akdev1l »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #77
akdev1l wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>keep business as usual/status quo. Umm isn’t that what we want? Or are you suggesting there should be some other legislation in place?

Age gating first [1] (no social for under X age), keep tightening the policy ratchet as data and evidence indicates. OODA loop applied to policy [2]. [1] Tracking Efforts To Restrict Or Ban Teens from Social Media Across the Globe - https://www.techpolicy.press/tracking-efforts-to-restrict-or... - February 23rd, 2026 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

Either they’re doing a slippery slope trying to change the status quo or they’re doing this to keep the status quo

Seems you are contradicting yourself

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#286

Post by MarsIronPI »

somethoughts wrote: post #173
bink wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids aren't stupid. They'll just create another account when they're old enough to figure it out. They'll tell their friends how to do it and the rest of us will be stuck with these stupid prompts forever like it's a cookie banner.

From a parent's perspective, that's the great part about bubbling it up to the OS user account level. Its trivially easy to see if the user (child) has indeed created multiple OS level user accounts with different permission levels if you want to spot check the computer. You'll see it on first startup and then you can have "a chat". With Guest account access disabled, spawning a new account on a computer takes 2-3 mi…

> You'll see it on first startup and then you can have "a chat". With Guest account access disabled, spawning a new account on a computer takes 2-3 minutes, will send emails and dashboard notices to the parent.

On what OS? Microslop Windows? On my computer no one is notified when an account is created. And the account list isn't visible when I log in. I log in to the TTY.

Now, granted, I am not the norm. But my OS falls under these regulations. So what is my OS vendor supposed to do? For that matter, who is the vendor? What if I were using LFS? Who even would be the vendor for LFS? It's not even a distro!

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#288

Post by PostOnce »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #251
pianoben wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out, _maybe our computers shouldn't spy on us in the first place_?

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

What about every other system where we rely on parents to parent?

Kids can turn apple juice into wine in their closet

they can drive their bicycle to a drug dealer

they can rub a butter knife against the sidewalk until it's pointy

Do we need govt AI cameras in kids closets and on their bicycles? How do we verify they're cycling somewhere safe? How do we make sure they're not getting shitfaced on bootleg hooch they made with bakers yeast and a latex glove?

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#290

Post by jacobgkau »

pianoben wrote: post #269
SoftTalker wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the tools don't work, and are too fragmentary and burdensome. Would you prefer to inform each movie theater in town which movies your child is permitted to watch? Or just rely on the rating system that applies to most movies and is honored by most theatres? Parents want one setting that says "this is a child" and then expect online platforms to respond appropriately. As we expect and mostly have in the real w…

If parents want that solution, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO.

"If parents want drug stores to not sell liquor to their kids, then the proper thing is for someone to build that solution and make a fortune selling it, IMO." See how that makes zero sense in the context of a society?

Content providers are not incentivized to care about the problem, and will serve any content with ads next to it that they can unless they are forced not to. Ad-hoc solutions attempting to paper over that behavior on the consumer end are not adequate or effective. That's why they have a rationale at all for the laws here.

Post reply on HN