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

361–370 of 525 posts

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

#361

Post by raxxorraxor »

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…

That is the only real solution. It removes the lobbyists with their bad verification schemes and untrustworthy software. You don't need untrusty flaggers or untrustworthy official authorities. In no way can nations be responsible enough to not attempt constant sniffing attempts. My nation couldn't keep itself from spying of corona app users.

This can also be broadly implemented, any other technical solution won't be widely spread anyway.

I don't think authorities care about child protection though. They could have legislated malicious advertising practices and a lot of similar bad influences, but didn't.

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

#362

Post by saghm »

codedokode wrote: post #165
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.

But it seems that many parents do not bother to do anything to raise their children properly, including setting up parental controls.

Okay, but no kids live in my house, so why should there be a law requiring my ID to be checked even without knowing what I'm going to on my device? I don't get carded at the grocery store when I walk in because there's a chance I might buy alcohol.

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

#363

Post by saghm »

CJefferson wrote: post #318
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…

Should a government control the porn a child can walk into a shop and buy? The alcohol and drugs they can work into a shop and buy? Are you suggesting we remove current laws making it illegal for children to purchase these things?

If I recall correctly, in Pennsylvania the government does own the shops that sell liquor, and most states run lotteries, so there's certainly precedent for governments being the ones in the vice business.

That's besides the point though because this legislation doesn't check people's IDs when they're trying to purchase porn or alcohol, but as soon as they walk out the door, and if they refuse to show it, they have someone following then around even if they just go to the ATM and to the doctor.

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

#364

Post by ClikeX »

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.

Like how browsers made a do-not-track feature that got ignored by websites because there was no consequence?

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

#365

Post by bawolff »

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…

> The only thing server, platform, website, service providers should be doing is setting an RTA header if the content could possibly be adult or user-contributed content that could dynamically become adult, moderation aside....If a site is not adding the RTA header then progressively fine them into oblivion.

Seems like this would incentivize just all sites to have the header regardless of if it meets the definition since you get fined if you dont but no fine if you have the header unneccesarily.

Especially if your definition is contains user contributed content. That is all sites with a comment field. What really is left? I'm not sure i have even visited a site in the last month that wouldn't fall under this.

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

#366

Post by saghm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97
iamalizard wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such mandates should take place at all.

> No such mandates should take place at all How do you propose doing age restrictions for social media? These are broadly popular. (And the evidence supports them.) They are happening. So the question is how to do it best. The project for reversing the consensus isn’t worthless. But it’s a long-term project that will have to bear fruit after these restrictions go into effect, if ever.

There's also broad popular support for raising taxes on millionaires, legal access to abortion, and cheaper healthcare, all of which are at least as important as the issue of kids using social media without restrictions. If the premise is that we should solve them with whatever solutions we can come up with unless everyone agrees on something better, I'll look forward to the upcoming laws that tax capital gains the same as income, enshrine a woman's right to choose, and to establish Medicare for all. When those all take effect, I'll accept your solution to mandate ID checks on every device I own, but until then, this line of argument is nonsensical.

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

#367

Post by ClikeX »

SoftTalker wrote: post #330
lxe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tech companies could have headed off this legislation 15 years ago by just solving the problem as Bender suggested. But they wanted to pretend they had no social responsibility to not deliver filth to children, and so now the legislators are involved and they get to deal with that. I have no sympathy.

Here's one thing Apple did well on. Their screentime settings also work in the browser. It could be better, but at least it's something if you set up your kids device properly.

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

#368

Post by tyre »

vincnetas wrote: post #338
daemin wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie banners exist because it is a dark pattern companies use to get you to opt into marketing cookies by making the easiest thing the worst choice. This could all be handled by settings in the browser, only if the sites themselves listened to the users' browser preferences.

Agree. Its like in some countries you put a sticker on the mail box "no advertisement, please" and its illegal tor postman to deliver you ad brochures. Same could have been possible with browsers, but oh no, now you have to go out to each postman ant tell him explicitly that you do not want ads, and postman has no memory, if you tel him that you don't want ads. He can come back ten minutes later and you have to tell…

Fun fact: in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that postal workers cannot filter out mail by the owner’s request.

It makes a bit of sense, since the mailer had already paid, but the main justification (iirc; it was years ago that I read the opinion) was that a postal service should be neutral and trusted to deliver.

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

#370

Post by kube-system »

gsich wrote: post #216
lxe wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DNT exists, not even that is honored by websites. There is no need for a cookie banner for technical cookies.

DNT is deprecated by W3C, and browsers have been removing it
Post reply on HN