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

California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 416 posts

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#391

Post by enoint »

enoint wrote: post #134
huimang wrote: post #62

So is anyone going to revert the commits that jumped the gun on this? E.g. systemd's birthdate field https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954

For WSL, there will still need to be a passthrough.

But California could adopt some of Colorado’s language about containerization:

"COVERED APPLICATION STORE" DOES NOT INCLUDE: (I) A CODE REPOSITORY PROVIDER; (II) A CONTAINERIZED SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION; OR (III) AN ONLINE SERVICE OR PLATFORM THAT DISTRIBUTES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS IF THE APPLICATION RUNS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN A SEPARATE HOST APPLICATION: (A) AN EXTENSION; (B) A PLUG-IN; (C) AN ADD-ON; OR (D) ANY OTHER SOFTWARE APPLICATION.

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#392

Post by Tangurena2 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #215
red_admiral wrote: post #73

We got into this mess because people wanted Facebook to have age verification, and MZ decided to push the responsibility on to OSes. The result looks to me like Facebook will ban access from non-approved OSes like Linux. Android will still be allowed, GrapheneOS probably not.

TBH, OS based parental filters are the optimal solution here, especially if implemented in a proper way. Kids don't buy phones and computers, parents do. When setting up the account for the first time, the parents could set the account to be an "underage one", all the apps, browsers, etc., would get the USER_IS_UNDERAGE flag and filter content according to that. No need for every site to ask and verify the age, just…

I think that the V-Chip shows that when parental controls are available, most parents will not use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip#Usage

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#393

Post by enoint »

nojvek wrote: post #271
inigyou wrote: post #260

This is a silly idea since California's law was actually well-thought-out. This will actually force social media to ban Linux clients, since the social media can't be compliant in that case. The operating system won't provide an age signal and the social media isn't allowed to ask for one on its own. I also want a permanent ban for anyone who calls the California law "age verification". It does not verify age. Period…

I would love to see an entire generation of kids who don’t post on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and the likes. Social media from Meta and AI generated videos are a net negative to society.

Sure, but what about LinkedIn?

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#394

Post by enoint »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #305
DoctorOetker wrote: post #256

nobody is worried about about the arbitrarian aspects? What if you are interested in developing your own OS (a task that would have been monumental but may become trivial with LLMs in the future)? Why is the proper level the OS? Why not the browser or the hypervisor? Or perhaps manufacturer should remember your age? What if hardware is resold? We would need a hardware cadastre! A global hardware cadastre would unite…

The bill doesn't exempt Linux-based systems by name, if that's what you're thinking. It exempts any operating system that allows users to "copy, redistribute, and modify the software". It's a bit arbitrary in the sense that Microsoft and Apple could dodge the requirement by simply becoming open source, but that's not going to happen so it's not really a problem.

At the risk of sounding off-topic, there is other legislation distinguishing OS which contain an individualized app store from those which do not. Maybe Facebook Under 13, Facebook Teen, and Facebook Adult should be different apps.

Colorado legislation, for example, won’t change if the OS license changes.

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#395

Post by smalltorch »

teddyh wrote: post #186
gonzalohm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds horrible

You don’t say. Here are some things to radicalize you: • 2012: https://memex.craphound.com/2012/01/10/lockdown-the-coming-w... > • 2003: https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ > • 1997: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html.en >

2003 deserves its own thread that's a great write up.

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#396

Post by angiolillo »

inigyou wrote: post #380
angiolillo wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why must an age rating apply to an entire website? As one example, the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) (and to a lesser extent the prior Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSACi)) had a rating scheme that allowed sites to provide a default rating label that was then overridden for individual pages and resources using tags and RDF-based labels. For example, Tumblr could set a family-friendly default ra…

Because let's say you have a website like Reddit with a mixture of 18+ and 13+ stuff. Something that's 18+ but not explicit gets really popular. Pornhub will now livestream congressional debates, someone posts a link to this, and it gets fifty zillion upvotes as people can't resist commenting "wtf". Now you have a dilemma: do you show it on the front page or not? If you show this on the front page and it's 18+, it'll…

> If you show this on the front page and it's 18+, it'll lock children out of the front page

I don't understand why you think this is true when I specifically described a label that is applied to "an individual section" of the page.

To be more explicit: Today, each post on the Reddit front page appears in its own container element. If an 18+ post's container element could have some kind of "adult-content" attribute set then some web browsers could render the whole front page normally with the exception of that individual element. Perhaps they could black it out, collapse it, display it with a pixelated overlay and a "Request Access" button, whatever the browser supports and the device administrator prefers.

> The solution is obvious: you show it on the front page if the user is 18+. However, your proposal deliberately forbids this and says the front page must be the same for everyone.

Why do you think that my proposal requires that the front page must be the same for everyone? Providing different views to different users is the entire point of every child safety law and rating scheme I've ever seen. I'm merely saying that my preferred approach would be to mandate that potentially objectionable content is semantically annotated in the HTML somehow, so that each user's browser can apply whatever view restrictions (if any) the device's owner wishes. I think this is better than mandating that web browsers send personal information to every web site they visit and also mandating that sites pre-filter the content they send back.

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#397

Post by Rooster61 »

psd1 wrote: post #376
AngryData wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't but they should be. Many lives could be saved by making gun safety a mandatory class for all US students. If every kid had to learn the basic rules of gun safety, a significant number of accidental deaths could be prevented, and even many not so "accidental" deaths could be prevented because people would immediately recognize when someone else is being unsafe with guns. And gun safety rules are good thing…

I think you're optimistic about the overlap between "people who tit about with guns" and "people who absorb education". I dread the outcome of practical safety lessons because, the moment you give a classroom guns, then some teenage edgelord is going to pantomime shooting their buddy, or escalate a playground beef. People do not work the way you want people to work :-( May i offer an alternative? Make gun ownership a…

> I think you're optimistic about the overlap between "people who tit about with guns" and "people who absorb education".

The cavalier phrase "tit about with" is exactly the issue. People do so due to a lack of education about gun safety.

> I dread the outcome of practical safety lessons because, the moment you give a classroom guns

OP didn't mention practical lessons, and giving real guns to school children would be idiotic. You don't have to actually have a gun in your hand to learn what not to do with one should you encounter it. We have MYRIAD examples of non practical instruction (things like sex ed, chemistry [what happens if sodium is dropped in water and why?], physics [hey kids, lets visit a live nuclear reactor!]). If anything, the best way to dampen the glamor of guns instilled by media would be to make it a boring school subject.

> Make gun ownership a tedious bureaucratic procedure.

In many cases, it is. In my state, you can't hunt with a gun (or even a bow I think) without a mandatory gun safety course, and I needed a background check to buy the rifle in the first place. A background check that required a form.

Not to say there aren't loopholes, of course, and I think most Americans agree with common sense gun laws to implement more scrutiny.

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#398

Post by psd1 »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #215
red_admiral wrote: post #73

We got into this mess because people wanted Facebook to have age verification, and MZ decided to push the responsibility on to OSes. The result looks to me like Facebook will ban access from non-approved OSes like Linux. Android will still be allowed, GrapheneOS probably not.

TBH, OS based parental filters are the optimal solution here, especially if implemented in a proper way. Kids don't buy phones and computers, parents do. When setting up the account for the first time, the parents could set the account to be an "underage one", all the apps, browsers, etc., would get the USER_IS_UNDERAGE flag and filter content according to that. No need for every site to ask and verify the age, just…

I would absolutely support that position if it were compatible with observable reality.

My family and school failed to stop me getting my hands on booze, fags, drugs, and porn. Teenagers are fundamentally not controllable. The Amish and the Mormons are having some success, but that's likely not what libertarians want to hear.

What you describe is the status quo. Parents and schools are already, variously, giving The Talk, confiscating devices, enabling internet filters. Society deems these measures ineffective. In tiny part, that's a skill issue, but mostly it's just trying to cut down a tree with a herring. Again: teenagers.

You may, of course, sulk about age restrictions on alcohol. Prohibitionists would like that. Keep your out of the contested zone, make them look reasonable.

If you want to stand on your principles, try seasteading. But I'd appreciate coherent contributions to the debate, to offset the excesses of the pearl-clutchers and the spies.

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#399

Post by nhubbard »

jareklupinski wrote: post #161
ludicrousdispla wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I credit Minecraft with getting an entire generation comfortable using command line statements.

when a coworker asked how i remembered the argument for increasing java heap size, i just said "oh from a previous job" :X

What, people don't just recall those from memory? I fall asleep saying -Xmx and -Xms every night

Re: California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law

#400

Post by iamnothere »

inigyou wrote: post #381
iamnothere wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody cares about the distinction except pro-age gating activists. I don’t want any law that requires specific behavior from the OS, whether it’s verification, attestation, or something else.

Interesting, you don't think the GPL should be enforced? That requires specific behavior.

There is no law that says that you have to use the GPL for your OS project.
Post reply on HN