California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by hunterpayne » Mon, May 25, 2026, 10:48 PM UTC

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…

Please remember that there are CA state policies that the voters voted to overturn (in a referendum) and the current CA state government refuses to do so. California voters decided. The California government un-democratically decided to ignore the voters against their own laws they themselves passed.

PS I'm referring to bail reform here.

PPS Just trying to frame what the CA government thinks its allowed to do which is apparently anything it wants.

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

#232

Post by Bender » Mon, May 25, 2026, 10:48 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #17

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…

Absolutely trivial and totally comprehensive solution, enabling adult content blocking at the account level, device level, network level, and the ISP level. Could even be expanded to any sort of content blocking, if you want to allow households to restrict access to vaccine critique or criticism of the king without violating the First Amendment or rooting everyone's devices. The problem is that the point is to root e…

Imagine having to police the OS installations at everyone's home. It's dangerous enough to serve warrants to known felons at known locations. I would not want to be the paramilitary officer going door to door having to be ready to flashbang the family or worse. I don't know if there are even words to describe the PTSD that all the enforcers and families would have. Someone in North Korea probably has the words to describe this.

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

#233

Post by coryrc » Mon, May 25, 2026, 10:48 PM UTC

burnte wrote: post #205

hansvm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, I know several "home-schooled" people [0] who literally can't even read and later married people more than twice their age or had other serious deficiencies in their life potential. The government can probably step in a little more here and there. [0] I also know home-schooled people whose parents are far better than any teacher I've ever had and whose education and achievements reflect that obviou…

Public education is extremely different from age checks in apps. Yes, homeschooled people are generally really dumb because humans are not born with the knowledge of the world or how to teach it. This is different from California telling Debian to ask for user ages.

You have that backward.

The home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.

-- https://nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/#Academic

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

#234

Post by stinkbeetle » Mon, May 25, 2026, 10:52 PM UTC

hansvm wrote: post #157

burnte wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the other hand, I know several "home-schooled" people [0] who literally can't even read and later married people more than twice their age or had other serious deficiencies in their life potential. The government can probably step in a little more here and there. [0] I also know home-schooled people whose parents are far better than any teacher I've ever had and whose education and achievements reflect that obviou…

> On the other hand, I know several "home-schooled" people [0] who literally can't even read and later married people more than twice their age or had other serious deficiencies in their life potential. The government can probably step in a little more here and there.

Anecdotes like this don't help the case much when government schools in a lot of places "graduate" large proportions of their pupils who are functionally illiterate and innumerate. Then you get misconduct, bullying, abuse that goes on in government schools. Who should "step in" on the government?

Home schooled people do fine, statistically.

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

#235

Post by floxy » Mon, May 25, 2026, 10:55 PM UTC

antiframe wrote: post #11

trollbridge wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of interesting - basically exempts any OS that’s under an MIT or GPL licence… … doesn’t that excuse Android and possibly XNU, too?

Is all the code running on my Google Pixel 10 licensed under GPL and/or MIT? I think we have our answer.

Sounds like another fellow GrapheneOS user!

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

#236

Post by coryrc » Mon, May 25, 2026, 11:01 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #229

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Montessori advocates for mixed age classes where more advanced help teach the less advanced, as the teaching itself solidifies it in the more advanced student's mind. Not sure if it is valid. But it is something with studies and meta studies that may have been done well or poorly, not just an aesthetic choice. I think Vulcan style training pods driven by AI like khanmigo will end up being better education than the va…

Montessori does advocate that, but mixed ages is not mixed intelligence.

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

#237

Post by trinsic2 » Mon, May 25, 2026, 11:06 PM UTC

forgetfreeman wrote: post #173

Aerroon wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

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 encouraging more government intervention, but its clear this is not working. Its like going to a criminal gang and asking for security while they ransack your community and charge you for it.

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

#238

Post by nemomarx » Mon, May 25, 2026, 11:08 PM UTC

codedokode wrote: post #148

Bender wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you need them to? Treat everything unmarked as unsafe. Websites intended for kids will mark themselves in time.

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

#239

Post by tangotaylor » Mon, May 25, 2026, 11:10 PM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #213

tangotaylor wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's great, thank you. > copy, redistribute, and modify the software Shouldn't that specify the code not or not only the software ? For example, the corporate Windows license allows the corporation to copy, redistribute (internally), and modify (via group policy, APIs, or development on the Windows platform) the software . The big difference between that and Linux is licensees can't access the code . FOSS requires…

Honestly you're probably right, code is a better term. I copied that language from Colorado's SB26-051 bill which also has a FOSS exemption and they use the word "software". I'm not a lawyer but I'm hoping that a court's interpretation of one state's language will apply to other states.

That and lots of FOSS licenses use some variant of those words "copy, redistribute, and modify" so it's probably a term-of-art that courts recognize.

This is what Colorado's law says. It prevents Tivoization but not feature nerfing like the Play Integrity API.

§ 6-30-105 (3)

(e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.

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

#240

Post by trinsic2 » Mon, May 25, 2026, 11:13 PM UTC

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…

Support getting rid of Citizens United and support your representatives to support enforcing antitrust.

This is the main problem that needs to be addressed. Everything else is just a byproduct of it. If you support the by product of what was created by conditions that are not being address, you only make the problem worse.