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

451–460 of 525 posts

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

#451

Post by bragr »

theknarf wrote: post #396
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.

"Do Not Track" (DNT) is already a browser setting. It just doesn't enforce anything, nor does anyone respect it.

To be fair, some cookie banners do automatically opt you out if you send DNT, but is not the standard for sure.

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

#454

Post by miki123211 »

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…

Three things:

1. This assumes that websites are under your jurisdiction and can be fined. This is not a valid assumption on the internet. If you want to do this, you need a framework to block noncompliant websites via ISP-side null-routing, putting pressure on payment processors and hosting companies which do operate in your country etc.

2. HTML tags and not HTTP headers. If just a small part of the site contains content which shouldn't be displayed, the web browser should just hide that part.

3. Sometimes, it is genuinely useful to know the user's restrictions ahead of time. Imagine you're a movie streaming site or game store. You have some content which is suitable for the user, no matter their age, but you need to know which bracket they're in to decide what to show them. Without that info, you either default-adult (which sucks for children) or default-child (which sucks for adults).

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

#455

Post by in_cahoots »

coryrc wrote: post #325
in_cahoots wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read one of those papers. Only between 10% and 25% of homeschool families completed the test. And that's of families that could be located because they had previously interacted with major homeschool testing companies; there isn't a national list of homeschooled kids and many parents homeschool precisely to avoid standardized testing. Plus in many cases the parents were the proctors. This is hardly a robust finding…

Thanks for investigating deeper than I did. I don't know where else to look. However, unlike the post I originally replied to, every homeschooled adult I know is doing better than average, but anecdote vs anecdote isn't helping.

I follow some homeschooling communities as a way to learn how to supplement my kids' schooling. There are many interwoven communities: * religious families who don't want their kids exposed to the secular world * families who don't trust adults to watch their kids and wouldn't ever consider public school, summer camp, sleepovers etc. * families whose kids aren't being served by the public school system.

In all three scenarios (but especially in the first two) there is a sizeable population of parents who know their kid is several years behind grade level, but they tolerate it because they think kids learn at different paces. Or that it's fine for a kid to love one particular thing (cooking, machine repair, art) at the expense of a well-rounded education. And that's not even getting into the 'unschoolers' who treat never opening a textbook as a point of pride.

If you're well-educated and run in circles of people like you then you'll find the homeschoolers who also value education. But if you expose yourself to a wider variety of people your conclusions may change.

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

#456

Post by miki123211 »

no_wizard wrote: post #445
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.

In the US all the age verification legislation is written by data broker companies that want to mine this data. The government also wants to be able to have access to this information by proxy. It’s not written the way it’s written because they’re oblivious it’s written the way it’s written because it’s plain lobbying writing the bill. For example, there’s little in the way of protections in how the age verification…

How do you know?

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

#457

Post by miki123211 »

olalonde wrote: post #376
ClikeX wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Browsers can literally chose not to store cookies... There is no need to bring trust in the equation.

Most laws make a distinction between cookies stored for "technical purposes" and those stored for marketing / tracking.

The former are things like "does the user want dark mode", the language you chose to use the website in, the contents of your cart, your login info etc. The latter are for tracking. Typically, the former don't need consent, the latter do. Browsers have no way of telling the two apart.

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

#458

Post by raxxorraxor »

miki123211 wrote: post #454
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…

Three things: 1. This assumes that websites are under your jurisdiction and can be fined. This is not a valid assumption on the internet. If you want to do this, you need a framework to block noncompliant websites via ISP-side null-routing, putting pressure on payment processors and hosting companies which do operate in your country etc. 2. HTML tags and not HTTP headers. If just a small part of the site contains con…

No, I don't think any of that follows from that. The header can be set in the initial communication attempt. It is even more specific than any other mechanism to verify your age, because this header can be set appropriately for any web resource.

The problem of hosts in countries that don't give a shit is true for every solution aside from the great all blocking firewall no developed nation would want to have. So no to "ISP null routing" from me. ISPs provide infrastructure. They are not school teachers.

Such a solution implemented today would be tunnelled yesterday and everyone should support evasion attempts.

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

#459

Post by likeclockwork »

unparagoned wrote: post #326
jwitthuhn wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an admission from the writers that this law is unrelated to safety and people should very loudly and frequently point that out. If OSes that don't verify the age of their users are a genuinely unsafe for children, why should they be allowed just because they are open source? That doesn't seem to mitigate dangers associated with age in any away I can identify.

I think it just means that people using those OS simply won’t be able to access adult content.

All content is "adult content" unless specifically marked otherwise.

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

#460

Post by bsdetector »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #343
codedokode wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the header/metatag is designed poorly. The RTA proposal is that every operator of every site must verify the content and add the header to mark the site as "safe" or "unsafe". This is unnecessary burden that they have to bear if this proposal is given a green light and this is wrong. Instead, the default should be, that if there is no header or it cannot be parsed, then the content is unsafe. And if there is…

> Instead, the default should be, that if there is no header or it cannot be parsed, then the content is unsafe. That's something the client should be doing. You can configure your own device (or your kid's) to have whatever default you want. The actual problem is that classifying the entire firehose of user-generated content is precarious and uneconomical, so the default tag is going to be whatever minimizes liabili…

If the default wasn't "almost nothing" then you'd be sanctioning exposing some kids to content their parents didn't want them to see. If there's no economic incentive to tag content then it's not valuable content for kids.

Ultimately the problem is the provider knows what category the content is and the parent knows what the content policy is. Providers can't say whether it's "safe" or "unsafe", only what standards it complies with. Some parents will have weird policies like "only G-rated movies or any Jim Carey movie" that can't even be delegated in any reasonable way to providers.

So the header has "PG-13, US-legal" because it's a movie rated PG-13 and constitutionally-protected legal content in the US, and whatever other markets you want to open up. Providers could even include AI ratings so as to mass-tag their content at low cost, and parents can decide if a particular AI rating is okay.

Parental controls could even restrict official ratings to country of origin, so if you approve PG-13 it'll block that content from countries where you can't sue them for lying about it.

Post reply on HN