Live data from Hacker News

California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

tomshardware.com

11–20 of 525 posts

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#11
post #2

No, not exemptions! Drop the stupid-ass law all together.

Kind of interesting - basically exempts any OS that’s under an MIT or GPL licence… … doesn’t that excuse Android and possibly XNU, too?

Is all the code running on my Google Pixel 10 licensed under GPL and/or MIT?

I think we have our answer.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#12
post #10
post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

Has this idea been discussed when drafting legislation? I mean are they aware of it but dismissed it for any reason or no stated reasons?

I've emailed politicians as have others but only received boilerplate thankyou's. I suspect the real reason is kick-backs but they will never admit it.

No harm in people reaching out to their politicians state and federal. The more people that bring it up the better. Let them know your childrens data will not be shared and when the data is leaked you will hold the politicians accountable.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#14
post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

Thats crazy talk, how are we gonna build a database of computers tied to physical identification of users by which we can monitor, control, and monetize… you’re saying parents should be responsible for their children? How is the state going to be able to exert more control if it doesn’t have ubiquitous surveillance of it’s population!? /s

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#16
post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

> An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes.

An intern could also just delete the product which would also "solve" this "issue". The fact that it's easy or cheap is not significant to the problem at hand.

> should be doing is setting an RTA header

Many sites will just set the header by default. Now you've created a problem.

> then progressively fine them into oblivion.

This does nothing. See: Ofcom vs 4chan.

> device mandates

Mandate that the device provide an API for child protection software. Then it's up to individual parents to decide to install that software or not. Then we also get competition in this market rather than relying on whatever solution an intern cooked up one day.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#17
post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

Absolutely trivial and totally comprehensive solution, enabling adult content blocking at the account level, device level, network level, and the ISP level. Could even be expanded to any sort of content blocking, if you want to allow households to restrict access to vaccine critique or criticism of the king without violating the First Amendment or rooting everyone's devices.

The problem is that the point is to root everyone's devices. Anyone explaining how easy this is would be pushed out of the conversation as fast as if they were advocating for single-payer healthcare.

edit: I've been advocating the nearly identical but opposite solution - restricted access sites shouldn't respond to requests that lack an appropriate age/content restriction header. If they do, jail them.

They're literally going to have to do this anyway. Rooting people's devices to force them to lie about their age when they install their operating system is an absolutely fake pretendy solution; the only way it works is if you have to verify your age with some government agency when you install an operating system, in order to make that OS age official. The point is the identification.

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#18
post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

> An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. An intern could also just delete the product which would also "solve" this "issue". The fact that it's easy or cheap is not significant to the problem at hand. > should be doing is setting an RTA header Many sites will just set the header by default. Now you've created a problem. > then progressively fine them into oblivion. This does nothing. See:…

On the topic of 4chan [1]

Many sites will just set the header by default. Now you've created a problem.

I am not seeing a problem. Kids need not access those sites unless the parent or legal guardian approves it. Sites meant for children would not be adding the header.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953096

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#19

As a dad of two younger kids (7 and 10), I have been incredibly frustrated with the way age restrictions are handled across various services. Really, my main complaint comes down to: I completely disagree with what these services choose to restrict for kids and what they allow. They block my kids from doing things I have no problem with them doing and they allow things I would never want my kids to do in 1000 years.…

What tools would you want?

The internet is too dynamic to build a working filter around. Perhaps just tools which help parents quickly and efficiently monitor their child's device usage would be best.

Do you want to alter behaviors or lock children in a gilded cage?

Re: California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

#20
post #3

The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must che…

> An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. An intern could also just delete the product which would also "solve" this "issue". The fact that it's easy or cheap is not significant to the problem at hand. > should be doing is setting an RTA header Many sites will just set the header by default. Now you've created a problem. > then progressively fine them into oblivion. This does nothing. See:…

I must be stupid. Reword this so it makes sense to me. I can't even parse it.
Post reply on HN