This makes it even more unconstitutional. Privileging certain classes over others for compelled speech makes is way easier to strike down.
Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
51–60 of 84 posts
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#52This TOTALLY ORGANIC movement to suddenly please think about the children with required age verification in software makes me sick. Whoever is behind this needs to be exposed, tarred, and feathered.
The kids are very fucked up tho by the internet in our pockets. I'm Not sure that id on OS is the solution. But we should be trying something
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#53(5)(a) "COVERED APPLICATION" MEANS A CONSUMER SOFTWARE APPLICATION THAT IS ACCESSED THROUGH A COVERED APPLICATION STORE AND THAT MAY BE RUN OR DIRECTED BY A USER ON A DEVICE. (b) "COVERED APPLICATION" DOES NOT INCLUDE: (I) A SOFTWARE APPLICATION THAT DOES NOT PROCESS USERS' PERSONAL DATA; OR (II) AN APPLICATION FROM A FREE, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CODE REPOSITORY.
So if your service is proprietary, but your client is open source, it looks like your're free to go. As someone that relies on third-party clients to get usable interfaces, if this gets widely adopted it would be great news. It would end the cat-and-mouse game from companies trying to force users onto first-party clients.
But only if the user is not getting the app through an app store but from a "code repository"? I'm not sure if I interpret that correctly, but at first glance it seems confusing and ambiguous.
Does that mean I need to download the Android apk from a git repository? Would a clever lawyer be able to argue that the release section on GitHub is outside the repository and therefore not fulfilling this clause?
Would F-Droid still not be exempt because it is structured like a store and offers pre-built binaries?
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly would you do this without, you know, violating the first amendment? Algorithmic feeds are nothing without the content. People get toxic sludge because they signal to the algorithm that they like that.
It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. You may choose to sign up to see all the toxic sludge you wish, as is our constitutional rights as Americans. You say “they signal to the algorithm”, but how? How did they see it in the first place to be able to provide that signal? It was suggested to them. Often because that kind of content is really sticky for the site. Whether because you like it or it outr…
> It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned.
And again: the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it. They might've gotten it recommended by a friend, acquaintance, whatever, but the point is that if nobody had recommended anything to them the algorithm would have no data.
And again: how do you propose to get this to survive the first amendment? Algorithms are a form of speech under law.
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly would you do this without, you know, violating the first amendment? Algorithmic feeds are nothing without the content. People get toxic sludge because they signal to the algorithm that they like that.
Presumably by outlawing the types of algorithms used with the legislation carefully limited to a particular context rather than anything being authored by an individual. Right to express oneself preserved, government regulates a harmful product, business as usual. As far as this specific Colorado legislation goes (which is concerned with the ability to comply with their previously passed data privacy law) I think it'…
> First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around.
OK, so say the device receives a signal that say that an app is not appropriate for children under 13. How would the device find out if the user trying to run the app is under 13?
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#56This TOTALLY ORGANIC movement to suddenly please think about the children with required age verification in software makes me sick. Whoever is behind this needs to be exposed, tarred, and feathered.
The kids are very fucked up tho by the internet in our pockets. I'm Not sure that id on OS is the solution. But we should be trying something
Parenting problems require parenting solutions.
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#57hopefully if each state starts crafting dumb laws like this they all get banned via commerce clause due to infeasibility of compliance
This one is trivial to comply with.
You have to add a couple fields or so to whatever gathers user info at account creation time. Personally I would find that non-trivial because nowadays those are usually GUIs and I haven't done any GUI stuff in ages. People who current write GUI apps for current OSes would have no problem.
Then you need to use that data in a way that lets you provide an API for apps to check the age bracket of the current user.
That part is easy, although some people will no doubt make it way more complicated than it needs to be (probably making it part of systemd or something ridiculous like that).
What I would do is create a file in some standardized location for each age bracket. These files would be protect so that ordinary users cannot open them for reading. When an account is set up, an access control list entry would be added to the appropriate files that allows that user to open the file for reading.
The API for apps to check if the user is in an age range they allow is to simply use the normal file access API to try to open the age bracket files corresponding to the age ranges they are checking for.
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most proprietary services would process user data. It's also naive to believe that a fraction of open source in a companies pipeline would give them a free pass for everything.
But the text says "or," not "and." So by my interpretation if you process user data but are available via "free, public" repo, you're not covered. I presume "free" is defined elsewhere in the text, and that it approximates "open-source."
>(3) THIS ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
The kids are very fucked up tho by the internet in our pockets. I'm Not sure that id on OS is the solution. But we should be trying something
Parenting problems require parenting solutions.
There are so many things where we don’t do that. There are laws against giving children so many dangerous things, because you can’t watch them constantly outside the house, and honest I think unrestricted internet is worse for a child than alcohol. I’m not saying this is the right answer, but pretending it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.
Re: Colorado Amended SB051 (Age Verification Bill) to Exclude Open Source Projects
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. You may choose to sign up to see all the toxic sludge you wish, as is our constitutional rights as Americans. You say “they signal to the algorithm”, but how? How did they see it in the first place to be able to provide that signal? It was suggested to them. Often because that kind of content is really sticky for the site. Whether because you like it or it outr…
> It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. And again: the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it. They might've gotten it recommended by a friend, acquaintance, whatever, but the point is that if nobody had recommended anything to them the algorithm would have no data. And again: how do you propose to get this to survive the first amen…
By that logic no product regulation could ever exist because it restricts in some way the free expression of any corporation subject to it.
Obviously that's nonsense. Government bodies in the US are permitted to regulate the products traded on the market, at least within reason.
> the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it.
What point do you believe yourself to be making here? The only reason anyone shoots up heroin is because they want to. Or alternatively, someone can want a particular product without appreciating the toxic chemicals it happens to expose him to.