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

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

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 525 posts

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

#111

Post by oceansky »

neilv wrote: post #32

Who is actually writing this very concerning California Internet legislation, which will ultimately affect the entire nation and world? Did someone write California Internet legislation without consulting any California Internet companies? Did some California Internet companies write California Internet legislation? Did some other party write California Internet legislation?

Meta alone spent 2 billion dollars lobbying for this worldwide, and it was a massive success, it's passing everywhere unanimously.

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

#112

Post by skybrian »

Bender wrote: post #53
skybrian wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too simple to get much adoption. It's unreasonable to expect websites to drop out of Google search.

Google and others can adapt. RTA header? Added to potential adult or user-contributed category.

I imagine Google wants to distinguish between websites that want to be blocked by SafeSearch, versus websites that want to be blocked when parental controls are on? There's no reason to leave that ambiguous. Plenty of adults have SafeSearch on.

Defining a new header isn't hard; the hard part is getting consensus and adoption.

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

#113

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Parental controls should be a client side option set by the user.

Sure, make it easy for users to do so, but it's a users choice.

Kids don't buy phones or computers, their parents do, and during initial setup, parents could choose "this pc is used by a child" option, input some override password to disable this in the future, and the phone could block whatever needs to be blocked.

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

#115

Post by bijowo1676 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97
iamalizard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such mandates should take place at all.

> No such mandates should take place at all How do you propose doing age restrictions for social media? These are broadly popular. (And the evidence supports them.) They are happening. So the question is how to do it best. The project for reversing the consensus isn’t worthless. But it’s a long-term project that will have to bear fruit after these restrictions go into effect, if ever.

only parents can decide for their own children, so you can do whatever you want for your own children

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

#116

Post by layer8 »

Not just Linux. More specifically: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.

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

#117

Post by jrmg »

iamalizard wrote: post #55
Bender wrote: 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…

No such mandates should take place at all.

Are you also against age limits for the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes, pornography etc?

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

#118

Post by harshreality »

iamalizard wrote: post #55
Bender wrote: 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…

No such mandates should take place at all.

A lot of us who grew up pre-social-media agree in principle.

What it fails to account for is that today's internet is qualitatively different from the pre-social-media, pre-smartphone internet. The vast majority of the internet audience, too, is qualitatively different. Incentives are misaligned for an average parent who might want to keep a tight leash on smartphone internet access for their kids, when attempting to do so will generate fierce opposition from their kids and leave them socially out of the loop.

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

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bijowo1676 wrote: post #115
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No such mandates should take place at all How do you propose doing age restrictions for social media? These are broadly popular. (And the evidence supports them.) They are happening. So the question is how to do it best. The project for reversing the consensus isn’t worthless. But it’s a long-term project that will have to bear fruit after these restrictions go into effect, if ever.

only parents can decide for their own children, so you can do whatever you want for your own children

> only parents can decide for their own children

Voters are collectively deciding for all of our children. And there are absolutely group dynamics that require cooperation. It’s why rich communities ban phones in classrooms while in poor communities, the one family that tries doing it alone is probably going to be less successful.

Again, I’m not saying you’re fundamentally wrong. Just that this debate has been had and the polling is massively in favor of bans for under-14 year olds and strongly in favor for under-18s. (And to the degree I’ve connected with electeds, the folks calling in and writing were almost 100% one way. The civically-engaged electorate is practically at consensus.)

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

#120

Post by kloop »

7e wrote: post #91

Why should Linux be exempt? Linux lobbyists seem to be against the public good. It takes an AI agent 5 minutes to add this feature and then they add be good forevermore. And given that the software is open source, everyone can use the same library to be compliant. Belly-aching snowflakes…

1st amendment. There's a long history of carve outs around commercial products. But, if Linux devs (who aren't selling anything) went to the mat against this law, the government of California would lose and (at least part of) their law would be struck down.
Post reply on HN