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

A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 768 posts

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#321

Post by RobotToaster »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #232
fangpenlin wrote: post #67

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance: - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode swi…

i did not even think of that! As the current law reads, will smart devices with OSes require age verification? Many IoTs are just tiny Linux versions running on a small processor. This makes all smart GE washing machines, dryers and refrigerators illegal in California. come to think of it, maybe there is something good about this law. :D

Not just that, but the the copy of Minix in the intel IME of every intel processor.

Not to mention all the printers, routers, etc that run freertos/thread x/vxworks.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#322

Post by petejodo »

aldonius wrote: post #265
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting middle ground might be to prohibit anyone from serving more than two contiguous terms in the Senate or four in the House. Then if you've done your two terms in the Senate, you can run for a House seat, do three terms there and then your old Senate seat is back up for reelection. Except your old Senate seat now has a new incumbent who is only on their first term and you're running as the challenger. Me…

Interesting idea and I do agree that contiguous is OK but total is not. I think I'd suggest a more generous Senate term limit. Three terms (18 years) would allow for someone to see out a complete Presidential super-cycle, for example. The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

Or incumbents have to win some larger percentage of the vote in order to win over time

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#323

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

defrost wrote: post #305
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #300

There’s a concerted global effort to push this legislation. It’s also been proposed in Colorado and, some version of it’s been passed in the UK and Australia.

> some version of it’s been passed in the UK and Australia. Really? Can you expand on the version of Australian legislation that requires an OS to have age verification? The AU legislation I'm aware of requires various social media sites to verify that users of those sites are not under some age, 16 or so. That is not a constraint on the OS or on potential users, that's a legal requirement for Social Service provider…

I'm just catching up on the subject myself but, here's a news article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/age-verification-sear...

It appears that the Australian and UK versions don't go as far as what seems to have been proposed in the US.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#324

Post by dddgghhbbfblk »

Supermancho wrote: post #202
pwthornton wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting. A much more real issue is actually age limits. If someone starts in the Senate at 40 and serves for 24 years, term limits hardly seem to be the big issue. They are retiring at a normal time, and they should still be functioning at a high level. Conversely, someone who gets elected at 70 and then gets term-limi…

> Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting. That is one aspect, but not the important one. The most important element is anti-corruption. Legal bodies can always entrench themselves and their own interests. Term limits significantly weakens entrenchment...excepting when the same legal bodies inevitably gut it.

You're saying that term limits reduce corruption?

That's in fact not at all what the research says. There's a decent amount of research that suggests that they actually increase corruption. There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

This is a classic one of those ideas that many people intuitively "feel" makes sense but is actually just terrible policy.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#325

Post by rib3ye »

fangpenlin wrote: post #67

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance: - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode swi…

It's not a coincidence the equally clueless citizens are asking for these laws. Like in business, sometimes it's better to do "some thing" when you're not smart enough to do the right thing. Maybe you get there, maybe you don't, but inaction is not looked upon kindly.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#326

Post by wredcoll »

gatlin wrote: post #273
wredcoll wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selecting an age choice from a drop down is in no way verification. The original post was low effort flame baiting. There's an argument to be made that it should be ignored, but it's hard to say.

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

The bill attempts to move age related signals from sending a scan of your passport to facebook to your own operating system attesting something.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#328

Post by defrost »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #323
defrost wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some version of it’s been passed in the UK and Australia. Really? Can you expand on the version of Australian legislation that requires an OS to have age verification? The AU legislation I'm aware of requires various social media sites to verify that users of those sites are not under some age, 16 or so. That is not a constraint on the OS or on potential users, that's a legal requirement for Social Service provider…

I'm just catching up on the subject myself but, here's a news article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/age-verification-sear... It appears that the Australian and UK versions don't go as far as what seems to have been proposed in the US.

Australia's put the onus on vendors; you can't supply cigarettes to minors, you can't supply alcohol to minors, you can't social platform minors.

It's useful to get a feel on the policies and differences being rolled out before going over the skies and extrapolating from misconceptions.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#329

Post by mistercheph »

wredcoll wrote: post #246
gatlin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. This is the age verification requirement which you rudely and incorrectly said doesn't exist. Nothing is done with the data (for now) but age is in fact verified on the assumption that the user doesn't lie. Instead of lengthy condescending missives about the behavior of other users, you should instead write "I'm sorry for being ne…

Selecting an age choice from a drop down is in no way verification. The original post was low effort flame baiting. There's an argument to be made that it should be ignored, but it's hard to say.

Ah we should be happy about a bad law because it's enforcement mechanism is weak? That's twice-bad: undermines the strength and meaning of Law, and aligns Law with the bad.

When the law and it's execution are undermined and weak, it becomes the cudgel of fickle changing power, i.e. it is applied selectively and it means nothing to people except when they are being beat in the head with it, at which point they only regret having been caught, successfully undermining the social and political fabric of a nation.

Having a bad law with a weak enforcement mechanism isn't quite the thing to be boasting about you seem to think it is.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#330

Post by hintymad »

fangpenlin wrote: post #67

There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance: - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode swi…

So essentially California is becoming more and more like EU? It's curious to see how it pans out. Maybe EU's model turns out to be better than a more laissez-faire world like the US. Who knows.

What's even more curious is that the California voters seem not care at all. As long as the government can collect more taxes with more altruistic slogans, the voters will stay happy.

Post reply on HN