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

331–340 of 525 posts

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

#331

Post by LtWorf »

lxe wrote: post #183
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…

Bold of you to assume that lawmakers have any common sense when it comes to technology legislation. It could have taken 3 interns 3 hours at each browser company to implement a cookie consent standard 15 years ago, yet here we are in cookie banner hell.

Most of those banners are in violation of GDPR. The law isn't necessarily the problem, although it could have been done better.

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

#332

Post by fc417fc802 »

iamnothere wrote: post #311
fc417fc802 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is one of redressing a concrete dysfunction. Libraries or the local bookstore or whoever aren't trying to sneak into your home, onto your child's school bus, into your child's classroom, while pushing various extremist publications purely for their own profit (ie "engagement"). We do in fact have zoning laws - I can't inadvertently encounter a strip club in a quiet residential area. Meanwhile it's comm…

Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany. Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking. “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amen…

You're just vaguely waving towards the first amendment. That's not a cohesive argument in and of itself.

By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. After all, they both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech).

> Impressums cannot be required in the US

Yes but why can't they be required? My (quite possibly flawed) understanding was that SCOTUS previously established that publishing without attribution could not directly be outlawed, recognizing the ability to speak anonymously as an important aspect of political speech. What I have described does not run afoul of that. It neither restricts one's ability to speak nor provides for any form of attribution.

> “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights

Regardless of either your or my personal opinion SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights when a compelling need is presented and the remedy is sufficiently targeted. That said, I don't believe that what I described infringes on the first amendment to begin with so your point is doubly moot.

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

#333

Post by TimTheTinker »

iamnothere wrote: post #285
TimTheTinker wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? An operating system, as defined by Andrew Tanenbaum[0], the author of both Minix and of the best operating textbook ever, is a combination of: - an "extended machine": provide usable abstractions over the hardware to reduce complexity to a manageable level - a "resource manager": provide for an orderly and controlled allocation of the processors, memories, and I/O devices among all the various programs wanting t…

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modifi…

I know that, most technical people know it, but I refuse to call it "GNU/Linux" because that's a dumb name and Richard Stallman is so over the top pedantic to constantly insist on it.

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

#334

Post by SoftTalker »

iamnothere wrote: post #311
fc417fc802 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is one of redressing a concrete dysfunction. Libraries or the local bookstore or whoever aren't trying to sneak into your home, onto your child's school bus, into your child's classroom, while pushing various extremist publications purely for their own profit (ie "engagement"). We do in fact have zoning laws - I can't inadvertently encounter a strip club in a quiet residential area. Meanwhile it's comm…

Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany. Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking. “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amen…

Regulations on speaking to children have ample precident. We rate movies and age-gate admittance, we don't allow children into liquor stores, strip clubs, or adult bookstores. None of those things violate the First Amendment.

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

#335

Post by SoftTalker »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #299
lokar wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was they shouldn’t give an age rating, but instead a list of standardized content descriptors

Well fair enough. In that case we are actually in agreement. Let the end user (or network admin) sort out what is and isn't acceptable in a given context. What we need regulation to provide (IMO) is a reliable way of doing that.

We don't need regulation, we need cooperation, analogous to movie ratings. A site could attest that they provide content ratings, and that attestation signed by an authority (MPAA). If they are found to have been dishonest about that, the signature is revoked (or probably easier, it's fairly short-lived and just won't be renewed). Browser makers (theatres) cooperate by only loading sites with a valid, signed attestation when the device's parental controls are enabled.

Sites can choose to have unrated content (adult movies) and those are only available on devices without an enabled parental control option (adult-only theaters).

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

#336

Post by thecrash »

bruce511 wrote: post #292
xoa wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly, this should be really simple as a foundation: by default the Internet is for adults. All of it. Where it's desirable for things to be available for kids, create the economic incentive and easy tools for parents to use and run on a white list, not a black list. I'd actually go somewhat further though and ask whether it's a good idea to even do this via web pages at all. We have a great potential system f…

A .kids domain is not a useful approach. The vast bulk of the internet is child neutral. For example my church a web site, the bakery down the road has one, the local pro sport team has one. They're not designed "for kids", but kids are welcome. Does StackOverflow need to register a .kids domain just so children might get answers to programing questions? If my-bakery.co.uk and my-bakery.co.au both want to be visible…

That's the trouble though - those friendly neighborhood sites can generally be assumed to be appropriate for kids, but if we create the expectation that they must ensure they are appropriate for certain age brackets simply by virtue of being online, those sites will cease existing.

Instead of running their own websites, they'll migrate to a platform like Facebook. That way Meta handles the burden of moderation and the legal complaints for the inevitable moderation failures.

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

#337

Post by Auracle »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98
grim_io wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you can't. Like no past generation could stop their kids.

> no past generation could stop their kids Past generations absolutely protected their kids from cigarettes and alcohol. A gate doesn’t have to be 100% effective to have net benefits.

> Past generations absolutely protected their kids from cigarettes and alcohol.

I'm sorry, but what? Cigarettes, sure. Alcohol? Binge drinking was absolutely rampant at my school, and I don't think I'm alone. Don't get me wrong, some parents just buried their heads in the sand, but unless you're giving them a breathalyzer when they get home and severely punishing them all the time it's pretty hard to prevent.

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

#338

Post by vincnetas »

daemin wrote: post #315
lxe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bold of you to assume that lawmakers have any common sense when it comes to technology legislation. It could have taken 3 interns 3 hours at each browser company to implement a cookie consent standard 15 years ago, yet here we are in cookie banner hell.

Cookie banners exist because it is a dark pattern companies use to get you to opt into marketing cookies by making the easiest thing the worst choice. This could all be handled by settings in the browser, only if the sites themselves listened to the users' browser preferences.

Agree. Its like in some countries you put a sticker on the mail box "no advertisement, please" and its illegal tor postman to deliver you ad brochures. Same could have been possible with browsers, but oh no, now you have to go out to each postman ant tell him explicitly that you do not want ads, and postman has no memory, if you tel him that you don't want ads. He can come back ten minutes later and you have to tell him again.

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

#339

Post by trinsic2 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #302
trinsic2 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current form of government and the last administrations have allowed this environment to exist. We don't have antitrust regulation being enforced and citizens united is still in effect. This is only going to cause things you describe to get worse and the U.S. government is complicit in this because we have a two party system that works directly or indirectly for the establishment. I'm not sure if you are encourag…

That's a problem with the politicians folks have chosen to elect, not an issue with the concept of governance. And while I agree with your analysis proposing we all wait patiently for "market forces" to resolve whatever ludicrously unethical bullshit industry is up to at any given time is also clearly a non-starter. So now what?

It's more than just politicians we elect. There is a systemic problem that needs to be adressed before we can elect candidates that represent our wishes. Citizens United needs to be abolished. Money needs to be removed from politics and we need enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Governance only works when it represents the people, that is not what this government does right now and no amount of electing the right candidates is going to fix that until we have those two issues addressed.

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

#340

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kqp wrote: post #316
lxe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bold of you to assume that lawmakers have any common sense when it comes to technology legislation. It could have taken 3 interns 3 hours at each browser company to implement a cookie consent standard 15 years ago, yet here we are in cookie banner hell.

This is misinformation stemming from disinformation propagated by organized industry retaliation to the law. Cookie banners are not and never have been required by law, they are intentional harassment designed to make users oppose laws that actually just say “you may not track users without their consent”. A good faith implementation would be simply nothing, because no explicit consent is required when you’re actuall…

All of the cookie banners have separate categories for strictly necessary, functional, performance and marketing, because those come from the law.

The problem is that people generally want functional and often performance cookies, and then you end up with the stupid cookie banner regardless of marketing cookies.

Post reply on HN