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

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

reclaimthenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 369 posts

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#81

Post by Jtarii »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #15
hackinthebochs wrote: post #13

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

Well, perhaps your mental model of the actual objections to it are incomplete. There are a few problems and I'm curious what you have to say about them. First, "The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification". Do you think that it "can" or that it "will"? Big difference. It could also go the other way, right? Opening the door to a more onerous version? Why do you think that…

At this point anything that makes computers less usable is a good thing, time we go back to the real world. It was extremely unpleasant while it lasted.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#83

Post by Random_BSD_Geek »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #67
Random_BSD_Geek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> abolishing anonymity on the Internet. This is what Facebook wants.

> abolishing anonymity on the Internet. Firstly, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. On the Internet, especially forums such as HN, you are "pseudonymous". That is, you made up a name for yourself, and that's how you're known to others. At the very least, we are all identified by IP addresses, which are again, fairly stable and unique pseudonyms. There are nearly zero truly anon…

o_O

> Firstly, you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

I posted that word exactly once in this thread, and I was quoting someone else. But I like the Princess Bride too.

No idea what you're talking about with regard to the 90s. I can only tell you I was on the Internet then and it was not as you describe.

Regardless, there is a difference between "unmasked with a court order" and "everything you do online is tied to you for the benefit of ad brokers."

We can have reasonable privacy protections and still allow law enforcement to function.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#84

Post by frm88 »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #15
hackinthebochs wrote: post #13

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

Well, perhaps your mental model of the actual objections to it are incomplete. There are a few problems and I'm curious what you have to say about them. First, "The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification". Do you think that it "can" or that it "will"? Big difference. It could also go the other way, right? Opening the door to a more onerous version? Why do you think that…

This is brilliant. I haven't even thought about some of the questions you ask. Thank you.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#85

Post by globalnode »

bloppe wrote: post #40

> The term “operating system” means software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. > The term “operating system provider” means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. So excited to see the GNU vs. Linux debate finally land in court.

yeah there is no "one" provider in that example

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#86

Post by Tarq0n »

Random_BSD_Geek wrote: post #75
troad wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an SMBC strip that makes your exact point, except they intended it as satire, whereas you seem to mean it in earnest. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

I'm confused by how my point got so lost. I think Facebook is behind these bills. I think that from personal experience working at Facebook. That an LLM may have arrived at the same conclusion is unrelated. LLMs are garbage. Don't use them.

We're trying to have a discussion about facts, not opinions.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#87

Post by globalnode »

Random_BSD_Geek wrote: post #44
qazwsxedchac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer: No. Apple already caved in advance. Longer answer: In the UK, Apple already implements age "verification" at the OS level, starting with IOS/IPadOS 26.4. If Apple had not implemented this, it would still be in compliance with UK law. Apple is anticipatorily obedient. A company like Apple has visibility of the legislative pipeline in its markets. Looks like the UK was a test bed. Lots of OECD countries,…

> abolishing anonymity on the Internet. This is what Facebook wants.

there is no anonymity on the internet. the sum of your devices characteristics are close to unique anyway (i could be wrong but i think this is accurate). which kind of supports the hypothesis that this is about shifting responsibility for age verification due to laws coming from other countries recently. i have no idea how this will work on linux, it probably wont.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#88

Post by Random_BSD_Geek »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #79
Random_BSD_Geek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I think LLMs are garbage. Separately, and unrelated: I think Facebook is behind these bills. The LLM may be garbage and still sometimes produce a correct result.

Ok, but then we should look for an actual source beyond "Don't worry that it's garbage, it smells ok in this case."

You are arguing with something I did not say.

Yes, it would be nice to know with certainty who is behind these bills. It sucks how much opaque money influences American politics.

Josh Gottheimer's press release[1] on HR8250 mentions the "Meta Parents Network." I don't know what that is, but it does have "Meta" in the name.

Buffy Wick's noise about AB1043 claimed it was passed with the support of tech companies. I have spoken directly to one person close to AB1043 who told me Facebook argued against AB1043. I have doubts. But if true, I suspect they were not arguing in good faith and had ulterior motives.

In the end, no matter who is secretly lobbying for or against age verification bills all over the planet, the bills are terrible, and we should fight them.

[1] https://gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-gottheimer-announ...

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#89

Post by svillar »

This is equivalent to China’s Digital ID without branding it as such - because such branding would fail.

They are laying the foundation at the infrastructure layer to build a Digital surveillance net, look at the pieces with the eye of an Architect -

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/15/banks-citizenship-data-colle...

And

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8250...

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#90

Post by nurumaik »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #13

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

least bad way to implement age checking is just asking user
Post reply on HN