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

141–150 of 525 posts

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

#141

Post by shevy-java »

I don't trust this one bit.

The reason is simple: the pattern I see hints that there is:

a) money spent, to push through age-sniffing, and b) it is happening almost globally.

I am not necessarily saying that all this can be singularized down to one bribe-using company, be it Meta, Google or what not, or state actors becoming beyond Evil. But just as the butterfly effect is used as analogy how a strong wind can be created further downstream, I see the situation here VERY similar. To me it is not confined to age-sniffing. Remember the sudden declaration of war by the UK against VPN. This is in my opinion connected here. The goal is not "protect the children" but instead spy more on people than before. A gradual extension of this. And some companies and private interests will benefit. See also the recent Palantir claim made against London aka "the major is responsible for more robberies when he refused to obey to our rule". These companies are greedy - and insolent.

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

#142

Post by Bender »

codedokode wrote: post #138
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…

I think the header/metatag is designed poorly. The RTA proposal is that every operator of every site must verify the content and add the header to mark the site as "safe" or "unsafe". This is unnecessary burden that they have to bear if this proposal is given a green light and this is wrong. Instead, the default should be, that if there is no header or it cannot be parsed, then the content is unsafe. And if there is…

For what its worth this header has been around for a very long time. It's actually the second iteration and much simpler than it's predecessor.

Parents today can accomplish what you are suggesting by installing parental control software and only allowing access to things they explicitly approve.

This can also be done via headers explicit blocking of all the things and was suggested in another thread. [1] Some people liked the idea.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47952999

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

#143

Post by shevy-java »

Bender wrote: post #61
iamalizard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such mandates should take place at all.

I agree fundamentally and ideologically but we are past that point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. There will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions that keep the control on the client side and do not share data. Any data shared can and will be abused, leaked , sold, stolen without consequence.

We are not past the point at all. Any democracy can ultimately decide on laws and regulation. Why would you wish to insinuate otherwise here? California could easily decide to not implement such laws, for instance.

That data leaks out is always a given. So, gather less data. Ideally none. But this is not a discussion about data. This is a discussion as to what state actors think they are allowed to do. It is an attack on private life of people. See the combined strike against VPNs.

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

#144

Post by Aurornis »

oceansky wrote: post #111
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.

Meta has not spent $2 billion lobbying for this or on lobbying altogether.

It’s amazing how that one AI slop project that made this claim got so many people to believe this number.

Spreading this disproven AI slop around isn’t helping. It just makes opposition look like uninformed conspiracy theorists who can’t fact check anything.

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

#145

Post by pluralmonad »

ObscureScience wrote: post #132
fhn wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You but them smartphones, tables, laptops, and internet access and then complain there is too much access?

Yeah, why should it not be desireble to give them access to the good properties of such devices and the internet?

What are the good properties that justify giving kids smart phones?

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

#146

Post by jmyeet »

What's depressing to me is just how self-serving all this is. The original bill was AB 1043. Who supported that, breaking with other tech companies? Why Meta of course [1][2]! Meta likes this because it pushes liability onto the OS providers. Guess who doesn't have an OS? Google's support is a little stranger given Android. It seems like AB 1043 also shifted liability to third-party app developers instead of the app store so, conflicting goals?

Likewise, you'll have Microsoft and maybe Apple pushing for Linux to be included for, again, entirely self-serving reasons. Microsoft is never one to miss an opportunity to benefit Windows.

All that's going on here is competing corporate interests. Likely nobody in power actually cares the actual end users.

As much as libertarians chafe against it, I think we've demonstrated that something has to be done in relation to children online. Advertising to children, harmful impacts of social media, cyberbullying, addictive behavior and selling the data of minors needs to stop. How we get there is unclear. Meanwhile, everyone responsible is just trying to limit and shift their legal liability and that's it.

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances...

[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...

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

#147

Post by shevy-java »

mikestorrent wrote: post #63
iamalizard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such mandates should take place at all.

I agree with you, as a longtime free speech believe. but... I would also like to keep my kids from seeing the very worst of the internet before they're ready to handle it. I tried using a PiHole but Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS nullifies that now. It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7; what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something li…

You describe a use case for you. That's fine.

Here we talk about use cases for EVERYONE. I don't see how your use case is fine for me, because I personally do not agree with it on any level at all whatsoever. You believe in restriction. I don't. There is no common ground here.

> It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7

Is this your job? At which age will you stop monitoring them?

> what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see

99%? Where do you get those numbers from?

Besides, what stuff anyway? Even then the issue isn't about your kids. It is about laws for EVERYONE.

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

#148

Post by codedokode »

Bender wrote: post #142
codedokode wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the header/metatag is designed poorly. The RTA proposal is that every operator of every site must verify the content and add the header to mark the site as "safe" or "unsafe". This is unnecessary burden that they have to bear if this proposal is given a green light and this is wrong. Instead, the default should be, that if there is no header or it cannot be parsed, then the content is unsafe. And if there is…

For what its worth this header has been around for a very long time. It's actually the second iteration and much simpler than it's predecessor. Parents today can accomplish what you are suggesting by installing parental control software and only allowing access to things they explicitly approve. This can also be done via headers explicit blocking of all the things and was suggested in another thread. [1] Some people…

The point is that it is unrealistic to expect millions of people to mark the content. Also, the header is better than the metatag because it can be added to images, videos and other non-HTML content as well.

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

#149

Post by tzs »

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…

> 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 check for an RTA header [1].

Your cite is an earlier post of yours which says

> The one and only method I will participate in is server operators setting a RTA header [1]

and that cites a still earlier post of yours

> I stand by my repeated statements of how this could have been solved simply using an RTA header [1]

which finally actually cites¹ something that explains what the heck on RTA header is.

It would be quite a bit more reader friendly to cite https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php rather than make the reader traverse a linked list of comments to get there.

¹https://www.rtalabel.org/page.php

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

#150

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

burnte wrote: post #135
iamalizard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such mandates should take place at all.

This is correct. It is not the government's job to raise our children. The more we ask the gov't to do that we should do, the less power we actually have. Some will say this ship has sailed, well, I say it's not too late to sink it.

I am sick of these "government bad" takes. They lack constructive suggestions, like your "sink it" nugget, they lack decent problem descriptions, as if anything after the sinking (likely private governance, aka feudalism) is immune to the ills of big-gov, and on top perpetuate reductivist arguments as if any kind of restrictions of freedom is by definition bad.

This broad rejection without good reasons is borderline sociopathic. ... and parental control is not the gov raising anyone.

Post reply on HN