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

191–200 of 525 posts

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

#191

Post by dotancohen »

Bender wrote: post #66
lazyasciiart wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, no news sites for kids.

Right, no news sites for kids. Correct. Until parent or guardian puts in password next to the text that says "Approve this site, forever." You gave me an idea. Maybe there could be categories similar in concept to those that exist in corporate firewalls today that say things like: - News Category (Known to be SFW) - News Category (That may be NSFW) - Child friendly sites - Social media sites ... and so on. This could…

What is [N]SFW under your definition? I don't think anybody has a problem with children seeing an adult heterosexual couple kissing, but what about a teenage couple? A homosexual couple? A mixed-race couple? A couple with a 40 year age gap? Audible moaning? Groping under clothes? Implied but not explicit hands touching genitals? Dripping saliva and face licking?

The problem with defining categories is that artists will do their best to defy categorization. That has been the nature of art for as long as humans have been making art.

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

#192

Post by nodar86 »

farley13 wrote: post #182
codedokode wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I tend to agree - making folks intending to interact with minors comply makes more sense. That said, outside of the merits of this approach, I am dubious of any actual implementation given 2 points. 1) Protecting the youths will always be a leaky bucket. With disadvantaged youths possibly more at risk. Those exposed to non-compliant parents ("cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content) or lacking strong…

> "cool" parents who are ok with sharing unsuitable content

Or simply parents who won’t agree with the government on what is suitable for their children.

We already have parental control on all mainstream operating systems, why cannot this simply be the responsibility of the parent as are so many other things regarding what children do, watch, eat etc?

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

#193

Post by Bender »

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.

I was referring to the intern being able to add the header. Politicians need financial incentive. I don't have the resources to lobby them. I think that might require a philanthropist should there happen to be one that lurks on HN. There are some interesting people that lurk here that we sometimes learn about.

They can't do anything today as it is a federal holiday but they could do something tomorrow.

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

#194

Post by dijksterhuis »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #175
smelendez wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels more complicated. Some kids getting access to booze here and there with planning and coordination is different from kids walking into a liquor store or bar whenever they want.

It's literally all or nothing[1]. Either measures are 100 percent effective or they are completely broken and should not exist. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

are you… are you /s-ing right now? it’s unclear to me whether you’re being satirical/sarcastic or not and i want to check before i point out a thing.

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

#195

Post by hypfer »

kogasa240p wrote: post #190
hypfer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He isn't. Also never was (unless the CV lies that is). As for what drove him instead.. I suppose we will never know. All we can know for certain is that the whole thing felt _very_ inorganic and not like something a reasonable human being would just start doing out of the blue. (Corporate) politics love plausible deniability, so maybe it was just inherently human randomness. I'm sure it was. Please move along.

Maybe it's a Lennart Pottering sockpuppet.

I doubt it.

And you would doubt it too if you would look at the actual person that is Lennart beyond the "Pulseaudio bad. Systemd bad. Lennart bad." meme.

Very different handwriting too.

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

#196

Post by girvo »

xorcist wrote: post #186
echelon wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be very explicit so we're not dancing around the topic: The potentially all-powerful government shouldn't know: - what vices a person has - what religion a person has or doesn't have - what porn you watch - what alcohol and drugs you buy PERIOD. All of these things can be exploited. To control jobs, to control finances, to extort influence, to shape ideology, etc. The government shouldn't be able to catalog th…

What constitutes an all-powerful government? It seems rife for a no-true-scotsman argument. Would it be acceptable for a private company to own this information? Perhaps sell it to others?

To me an all powerful government is one that has all the information the user just listed, because governments are by definition the most powerful force in our countries.

Private companies should also be regulated with regards to data sales of private information, yes.

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

#197

Post by tangotaylor »

trollbridge wrote: post #4
kgwxd wrote: 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?

This is a potential loophole. Companies could have an "open source" OS but restrict installations like Tivo did in the 2000s (i.e. "Tivoization"). Or they could allow installation of modified software but restrict functionality like the way the Google Play Integrity API can nerf apps running on custom builds of Android.

Or, they can have a license like the Business Source License where you can copy, redistribute, and modify the software but you can't use it commercially. This goes against OSI's open source definition.

We emailed this amendment to Buffy Wicks's staff:

§1798.504(f) This title does not apply to[...]:

(4) An operating system or application that meets both of the following conditions:

(A) The operating system or application is distributed under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software, including for commercial purposes and without payment of a royalty or fee.

(B) The operating system provider or developer does not, by technical or contractual means, prevent the recipient from installing modified versions of the software on a device on which the unmodified version operates, and does not restrict the functionality or interoperability of modified versions.

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

#198

Post by zdragnar »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #170
throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Friend, we have a fair amount of suggestions ( including constructive ones! ). Do you know why? Because we mostly know how to make education decent for individual students like: - keeping class sizes small - keeping class within similar development range ( AP with AP. short bus with short bus ) None of it is a secret, but government can't (edit:or won't) make it happen. Hence regular people just doing the best they c…

I know people who will adamantly insist that keeping classes within similar development ranges is harmful and will vociferously reject any such proposal, up to and including things such as "gifted" schools and the like.

It's why some schools in (iirc) California did away with higher maths like calculus entirely.

Sadly, it seems there's nothing actually common about common wisdom.

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

#199

Post by Bender »

shevy-java wrote: post #143
Bender wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 attac…

We are not past the point at all.

I can only hope you are correct.

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

#200

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

zdragnar wrote: post #198
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend, we have a fair amount of suggestions ( including constructive ones! ). Do you know why? Because we mostly know how to make education decent for individual students like: - keeping class sizes small - keeping class within similar development range ( AP with AP. short bus with short bus ) None of it is a secret, but government can't (edit:or won't) make it happen. Hence regular people just doing the best they c…

I know people who will adamantly insist that keeping classes within similar development ranges is harmful and will vociferously reject any such proposal, up to and including things such as "gifted" schools and the like. It's why some schools in (iirc) California did away with higher maths like calculus entirely. Sadly, it seems there's nothing actually common about common wisdom.

I will admit that I never heard a serious argument from anyone that did not rely on issues not related to individual student's education. If you have any materials on those, I would love to read some of it.
Post reply on HN