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

Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

ilga.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 473 posts

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#361

Post by nickitolas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #350
marcus_holmes wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... a pinky swear then, right? I mean, how is the OS going to actually verify the age of the operator? I see how this helps Facebook - if you lie to the OS, and the OS tells Facebook that you're over 18, then it's not Facebook's fault if they provide you an 18+ service. I don't see how this helps anyone else.

It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site. That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.

I have no experience with minors using Linux. Do they not typically have sudo access?

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#362

Post by cesarb »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #350
marcus_holmes wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... a pinky swear then, right? I mean, how is the OS going to actually verify the age of the operator? I see how this helps Facebook - if you lie to the OS, and the OS tells Facebook that you're over 18, then it's not Facebook's fault if they provide you an 18+ service. I don't see how this helps anyone else.

It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site. That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.

> It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.

You are assuming the parent is the administrator of the computer.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#363

Post by halfcat »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #158
pianoben wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out, _maybe our computers shouldn't spy on us in the first place_?

I'm reminded of a video essay I watched about AI once, which took a side tangent into surveillance capitalism: "Google's data harvesting operation became a load bearing piece of the Internet before the public understood digital privacy. And now we can't get rid of it." The public has been conditioned to expect web services free at point of use. Legitimately it's hard to monetize things like YouTube without ads, and I…

Society won’t delay reward now for future good on its own. Even if one person will, there’s a line of people who will step in to pollute the lake or kill the whales for a bag of money.

It will just decay until it’s a short squeeze into oligarchy or worse (the corrupt will be forced into an arms race of accelerating corruption as opportunity becomes scarce). Then some other country who isn’t leaving it up to their society to do the right thing will be in charge. Until the same happens to them.

This is the value of religion historically, one of the few ways of coercing a population into doing the right thing for their own good. But every group can be spoiled or hijacked by a small handful of bad actors who are willing to do what others are not.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#364

Post by robocat »

carefulfungi wrote: post #359
Dylan16807 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

E. Platforms that want to serve violent, sexual, predatory, scammy, snake oil content in the most addictive way possible to exploit minors and other vulnerable populations for profit should save some of their revenue for lawsuits when they hurt people. Hold products that cause harm responsible.

This can only work if the damages cost less than the business is worth.

And there's plenty of examples (J&J, oil titans) escaping financial consequences by other means.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#365

Post by Dylan16807 »

cesarb wrote: post #362
Dylan16807 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site. That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.

> It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site. You are assuming the parent is the administrator of the computer.

I am not assuming that. That's why it's a "can". Parental controls are always "can".

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#366

Post by marcus_holmes »

array_key_first wrote: post #333
Dylan16807 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

C and D, combined. New internet for kids-only. This internet would be WHITELIST only. We would not be wack-a-mole trying to catch porn sites (sigh...) Rather, companies would have to submit a formal proposal to get their website listed on Kid Internet. This inverts the responsibility. It's not my cost, or your cost, it's their cost now. If they want kids, they better prove it. Then, you can trivially configure your r…

So we have some kind of control to stop your router from connecting to Adult Internet DNS? Because the difficult bit here is not allowing connections to the Kid Internet, but stopping connections to the Adult Internet.

How do we decide what sites resolve as part of the Kid Internet? Is there some process where a site submits itself for approval to be part of the Adult Internet?

How do we stop the government from using this to stop access to parts of the internet it doesn't like?

This proposal looks even less workable

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#367

Post by nazzzi »

panny wrote: post #323
Dylan16807 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

The Illinois bill is not about 18+ content. It's about controlling who your children can talk to on social media. The OS age check is just a means to that end. The end is blatantly unconstitutional. The bill of rights doesn't mention age limits. Freedom of assosiation applies to kids just as much as it does to adults. If the bill passes, then any racist parent could block all comms from kids of a different color for…

To be fair, as a parent I don’t want my under age children hooking up with literal nazis on social platforms, whoever that might be. The current tools and controls are lacking. A lot.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#368

Post by array_key_first »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #366
array_key_first wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C and D, combined. New internet for kids-only. This internet would be WHITELIST only. We would not be wack-a-mole trying to catch porn sites (sigh...) Rather, companies would have to submit a formal proposal to get their website listed on Kid Internet. This inverts the responsibility. It's not my cost, or your cost, it's their cost now. If they want kids, they better prove it. Then, you can trivially configure your r…

So we have some kind of control to stop your router from connecting to Adult Internet DNS? Because the difficult bit here is not allowing connections to the Kid Internet, but stopping connections to the Adult Internet. How do we decide what sites resolve as part of the Kid Internet? Is there some process where a site submits itself for approval to be part of the Adult Internet? How do we stop the government from usin…

> So we have some kind of control to stop your router from connecting to Adult Internet DNS?

Yes, all routers currently have this built-in. Most software outside of routers does, too.

Will it be perfect? No. But, for example, this is how content filters work at schools and just about every workplace. And it seems to be good enough for them.

And, this will work better than that. Because the key point is we're not blacklisting anything. Nobody has to maintain a list of banned websites.

> How do we decide what sites resolve as part of the Kid Internet?

Companies or people send an application. The website is reviewed by a human, and they get approved or denied. If you don't care to target kids, which most people don't, you do nothing.

So I don't have to do anything, nor do you. But Meta does. Google does. I'm fine with that.

And, this "board" or whatever who hands out Kid-Friendly certificates can also take complaints. Why not?

> Is there some process where a site submits itself for approval to be part of the Adult Internet?

No, this it the beauty of it. If you want to be a part of adult internet, you do nothing. You already are.

Every website is implicitly adult internet, and it naturally completely subsumes kid internet. So, if you're just making a blog or whatever, nothing changes. In fact, you don't have to update anything from right now. It will all still work. Because Kid Internet is new thing, and it's whitelist only.

> How do we stop the government from using this to stop access to parts of the internet it doesn't like?

Related to above, adult internet is what we currently have. Nothing changes. You and I won't notice, and we can't notice. There will be the free-range internet, and then the subset of the internet approved for kids.

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#369

Post by dmix »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #251
pianoben wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, and hear me out, _maybe our computers shouldn't spy on us in the first place_?

So which situation do you want instead of anonymous age verification: A) 18+ content is behind a pinky swear B) 18+ content is behind a parental control (what this bill would do) C) The internet can't have 18+ content anymore D) Some other system? Please describe it.

E) parenting

Re: Illinois Introducing Operating System Account Age Bill

#370

Post by dmix »

ottah wrote: post #44

This coordinated state level attack on the legislative process is crazy. These people can't seem to be bothered to do the basics of governing, but they always find time to do this cross-state nightmare fuel.

State government is always the worst for this sort of garbage legislation. The number of "economically-impactful" regulatory pages generated by state governments far outpaces the federal government in the US. And plenty of it is just corporate or influential NIMBY appeasement.
Post reply on HN