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

461–470 of 525 posts

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

#461

Post by Ajedi32 »

l72 wrote: post #264
lokar wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The page having a simple rating assumes there can be one mapping from content to rating for the whole world. I doubt we can even have one for North America and Europe.

Every app submitted to the App or Play store already has to do this. If parental controls are on, then users cannot download those apps. The only hard part for the web is that a site could lie since there is no gatekeeper, but some black lists can help with bad actors.

Maybe certain headers could be cryptographically signed. So like if your movie is rated PG by the MPA the MPA itself could sign a statement to that effect. Or a government could issue a social media company a license they could use to sign their pages as complying with some regulation and revoke their license if they don't comply.

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

#462

Post by sounds »

big85 wrote: post #41
cortesoft wrote: post #8

As a dad of two younger kids (7 and 10), I have been incredibly frustrated with the way age restrictions are handled across various services. Really, my main complaint comes down to: I completely disagree with what these services choose to restrict for kids and what they allow. They block my kids from doing things I have no problem with them doing and they allow things I would never want my kids to do in 1000 years.…

> I don’t want someone else choosing how I control what my kids do. Give me tools to control it myself I agree. Parental controls have been the norm for thirty years. The adult who owns the device should have control over it, not Microsoft or California.

Please keep in mind this sudden burst of legislation is because Facebook recently faced a combined $1.1 billion fine for intentionally harming children. The judgment took years.

New Mexico Child Safety Case ($375 Million) was an actual judgment.

US class-action privacy lawsuit was a $725 million settlement, with no judgment.

These laws were proposed as soon as it was clear Facebook would not win. They move the liability to the Operating System, exempting Facebook.

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

#464

Post by Ajedi32 »

lokar wrote: post #443
SoftTalker wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the vast majority of the internet thus being inaccessible when in "child" mode. Fine. It probably should be, if sites don't want to bother cooperating.

We are seeking a solution to a social problem, not just a technical problem. If it fails to achieve most of the social goals, it won't be used and you get something worse. Welcome to the real world.

The standard OP is describing doesn't exist. So whether it "fails to achieve most of the social goals" is yet to be determined. Blocking unrated content seems like a pretty desirable feature to me. Why wouldn't that be one of the "social goals"?

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

#465

Post by NewsaHackO »

dotancohen wrote: post #202
anigbrowl wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that the writers typically have legislative but not technical skills and are just trying to placate upset voters, without really understanding what the optimal solution could be? Reading this and other threads you can see therea re plenty of highly technical people who struggle to articulate what kind of policy they want or what kind of parental controls they want to set up themselves? It's kind o…

> One can point out that such electoral pitches are dishonest bullshit until one is blue in the face, but the fact is they work on a lot of voters because most of them are not smart and don't have the energy or inclination to research every issue. That sounds like a suggestion that democracy should be limited only to intelligent or educated people, or people who have researched all relevant issues. I know that was no…

I don’t know, one could say that “being informed” is itself an inherently biased argument. What is being informed? Is it that they agree with you (or whatever controlled opposition to your point in your mind)?

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

#466

Post by saghm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #424
saghm wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But if everyone who can credibly say that is busy trying to block any age gating, this is what we’re going to get.

I'm certainly not busy trying to block a bunch of hypothetical policies that no one has proposed when there are garbage ones that are literally getting pushed right now. It sounds more like too many of the people who recognize the harm of this policy are too busy trying to claim that the burden for coming up with a non-garbage policy should be on the people who fundamentally disagree with that framing.

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

#467

Post by Ajedi32 »

Bender wrote: post #142
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…

For what its worth this header has been around for a very long time. It's actually the second iteration and much simpler than it's predecessor. Parents today can accomplish what you are suggesting by installing parental control software and only allowing access to things they explicitly approve. This can also be done via headers explicit blocking of all the things and was suggested in another thread. [1] Some people…

Again, RTA header doesn't work because it's a blacklist, not a whitelist, and also because it's only granular enough to say "this is a porn website" and nothing else.

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

#468

Post by Bender »

reddalo wrote: post #417
Bender wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if the concern is they might miss out on revenue from a small child accessing their site and they are not a child specific site then perhaps they should be pushed out of the market one way or another.

No, what I mean is that adding a lot of laws to let websites be legal (age verification, GDPR, etc.) adds a huge burden and that prevents new small websites from even existing.

All I am proposing is that websites that may contain adult material add a header. That's hobby level effort. Small companies using a CDN or platform provider can either add the header in the CDN, check a box if this were to take off or open a ticket asking to add the header.

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

#469

Post by pluralmonad »

71bw wrote: post #437
pluralmonad wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the good properties that justify giving kids smart phones?

How much of your current knowledge would you simply lack were it not for the Internet?

It is trivial for a parent to gather materials for the kids without exposing them to billions of strangers/companies with who knows what intent toward them.

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

#470

Post by vetrom »

miki123211 wrote: post #456
no_wizard wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Take the volume and mass of lobbying by all of data broker companies, data collection companies, and executive agencies.

Combine that with the character of practically every law written involving data privacy, use, IP, and associated regulation of activity around these since the 1990s. It becomes painfully clear that the interests of private citizens have not had a seat at the table, and the Constitution has been taken as an inconvenience to bypass, not a guiding document.

Post reply on HN