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

421–430 of 525 posts

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

#421

Post by iamnothere »

SoftTalker wrote: post #334
iamnothere wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany. Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking. “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amen…

Regulations on speaking to children have ample precident. We rate movies and age-gate admittance, we don't allow children into liquor stores, strip clubs, or adult bookstores. None of those things violate the First Amendment.

> We rate movies

“We” (as in the US government) do not do this. There is not, nor can there be, a law requiring such rating.

> we don't allow children into liquor stores, strip clubs, or adult bookstores

These are physical stores/venues, not written speech. “We” do not restrict authors from writing adult books that may or may not be seen by children, nor do we require that the books are labeled as such.

If you want to restrict speech, pass an amendment. That is the allowable path.

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

#422

Post by cool_dude85 »

tardedmeme wrote: post #387
tyre wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough. Most advertising isn't individually posted to each address because that's expensive - they hire their own guy, who isn't a postal worker, to go around and put it in everyone's mailbox. It's like paying one cent per email to prove it isn't spam.

In the US it's illegal for someone who's not a postal worker to put things in your mailbox for exactly this kind of reason.

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

#423

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Longlius wrote: post #405
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>These are broadly popular The idea is broadly popular but the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits. But you knew that which is why you construct this rhetorical motte-and-bailey about it being "broadly popular"

> the second you start asking about implementation details (ie showing your ID to post on the web), the actual approval percentage tanks down to the single digits

Source?

> But you knew that

I genuinely don’t. I don’t think many electeds do, either.

The playing field is currently lots of angry non-technical parents looking at Silicon Valley leadership not doing anything remotely reassuring when it comes to taking care of their children. And then a good fraction of them being drawn into a proper pantheon of idiot conspiracy theories. (They’re really stupid.) I would love to see polls considering implementation details because that would at least imply somebody is thinking of them.

Right now, honest answer, I don’t think anyone in government is. Electeds see an easy win—or more accurately, a patchwork of angry, mobilized voters they can scoop into their election-year campaigns with a rushed-out bill that pins them to the issue but which neither they nor those voters really have the technical chops to parse.

Best case, we get tripe. Worst, the process gets hijacked.

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

#424

Post by JumpCrisscross »

saghm wrote: post #353
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no past generation could stop their kids Past generations absolutely protected their kids from cigarettes and alcohol. A gate doesn’t have to be 100% effective to have net benefits.

Yes, but when I go to the grocery store, U don't buy alcohol or cigarettes (because I don't drink or smoke), and no one cards me. Even if I never accessed a single site like the ones being described, and despite there being no kids who have access to my devices because I don't have any children, according to these laws every OS I install is required to force me to provide proof of my age. That's a huge escalation ove…

> but we're talking about every possible device that can connect to the internet here

I agree these proposals are garbage. But if everyone who can credibly say that is busy trying to block any age gating, this is what we’re going to get.

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

#425

Post by iamnothere »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #332
iamnothere wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany. Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking. “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amen…

You're just vaguely waving towards the first amendment. That's not a cohesive argument in and of itself. By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. After all, they both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech). > Impressums cannot be required in the…

> By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here.

Now you’re getting it. Throw them all out along with the idiots who passed the laws.

> Yes but why can't they be required?

The Court has interpreted compelled speech to be almost universally a violation of the First Amendment, outside of the courtroom. I tend to agree. “Shall make no law” is a strong statement.

> SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights

Prior courts. The present Court seems to be (rightly) rolling back both judicially-granted overexpansion of rights and exceptions to rights, although this is a slow process.

We have to stop relying on the courts to grant new rights and/or exemptions to rights. Passing unconstitutional bills and hoping for a favorable interpretation is clearly not the intended process, yet it’s become increasingly common.

We need to figure out how to pass amendments again or we are going to lose our republic. (It may already be too late due to an out of control executive and corrupt Congress, but that’s another matter.)

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

#426

Post by galangalalgol »

coryrc wrote: post #236
galangalalgol wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that is an issue. There isn't much separation until age 11 or 12 and even then it is usually at the same physical facility. Is there good data on how to handle that? Don't want to make irrevocable decisions too early, seen lots of people good at arithmetic that can't do math and the reverse almost as often. Then is it bad to have socialization absent between different intelligence levels? Most public schools in the us seem to intentionally leave no time for critical thinking or actual history lessons (as opposed to propaganda).

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

#427

Post by akdev1l »

axelthegerman wrote: post #398
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.

Also should have been easy to design an OAuth like flow where the government that seems to care so damn much about age verification to attest someone's age in a privacy respecting way - only yes/no if the person is of the desired age. But then again if it was to protect children, better support for voluntary age control would be so much more useful as most minors use devices managed/owned by their parents. But then s…

You can brute force the real age this way.

Do binary search and you don’t even need that many calls.

1. Is person older than 50? 2. Older than 25? 3. Older than 18? 4. Older than 9? 5. Younger than 14? 6. Older than 16?

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

#429

Post by Joker_vD »

akdev1l wrote: post #427
axelthegerman wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also should have been easy to design an OAuth like flow where the government that seems to care so damn much about age verification to attest someone's age in a privacy respecting way - only yes/no if the person is of the desired age. But then again if it was to protect children, better support for voluntary age control would be so much more useful as most minors use devices managed/owned by their parents. But then s…

You can brute force the real age this way. Do binary search and you don’t even need that many calls. 1. Is person older than 50? 2. Older than 25? 3. Older than 18? 4. Older than 9? 5. Younger than 14? 6. Older than 16?

Yeah, that's why the EU-designed API doesn't work that way.

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

#430

Post by soraminazuki »

tardedmeme wrote: post #391
soraminazuki wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enabling government spying under the guise of "protecting children" doesn't put private industry in check one bit. It's like saying we should install Flock cameras everywhere so that we can protect consumers from buying harmful products. Corruption and mass-violation of human rights is all that's ever going to come out of it. If the goal is to stop predatory companies, why not do so? Oh right, because that was never…

Do you really believe that your computer asking you if you're over 18 is government spying? I don't believe that you really believe that.

And how exactly do you validate your age? Government-issued IDs. Attaching government-issued IDs to every digital activity is the surveillance apparatus's wet dream, and it's not like these motives are hidden. So between this and equating opponents of this policy with cryptobros in your other comment, I have a hard time believing your accusation of bad faith as anything other than good old DARVO.

It's also the tired old argument that's constantly raised by encryption ban/backdoor proponents too. How many times do they have to be debunked, ugh.

If you're against the EFF on these kind of issues, it's typically a good time to reevaluate your position.

https://www.eff.org/issues/age-verification

Post reply on HN