Live data from Hacker News

US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

reclaimthenet.org

51–60 of 369 posts

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#51
post #23

[flagged]

The problem is with government mandates. Apple and Google already ship OSes with comprehensive APIs and parental controls. There's not even any porn on the iOS App Store by policy. Creating liability for random OS and app developers is absurd, and foreign porn websites aren't going to comply with this anyway.

Reddit and X are on the stores. I guess browsers are on the stores, at least on Android where they aren't necessarily Safari reskins.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#52
This is yet another underhanded attempt at making digital id mandatory. Child protection is just the trojan horse.

EU also released their age verification legislation. Notice how closely they are timed.

https://www.dw.com/en/eu-chief-urges-bloc-wide-push-on-age-v...

Pure coincidence?

It is all going according to plan.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#53
post #2

Do we know who is funding this? is this one of these things where Meta doesn't want the responsibility for this, so they are pushing to have the OS have the responsibility or something like that?

Meta. Specifically to undercut Apple.

Nope. Apple have been enthusiastic in their implementation of it even without it being required in several countries.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#54
An utterly insane idea for a law.

Age verification inherently means identity verification. There's no way to prove your age without first proving that you are YOU, either by showing your face or authenticating with some third party authority, usually government or a corporation.

The idea that you should be locked out of using your own computer until you do this is utterly insane. What problem does it solve that existing parental control tools don't? A generation of parents already trust their babies with iPads for this reason. And what of the millions of Americans who don't have current ID?

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#55
post #2

Do we know who is funding this? is this one of these things where Meta doesn't want the responsibility for this, so they are pushing to have the OS have the responsibility or something like that?

It must be OS responsibility because that’s the only place that allows the next step.

Everyone is so concerned with kids pretending to be adults, what about adults pretending to be kids? Any service that has any kind of private chat or picture sharing option will be a playground for “verified” kids.

Next step, “we must go further with the verifications until everyone is verified everywhere”. This is where the OS part comes in. Wish it was sarcasm.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#56

Tim Apple argued it was a violation of their engineers and managers free speech to make them engineer back doors Wonder if they will stand up against this on the same grounds https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

I am continuously amazed by HN's ability to engage in apple pedestalism and ignoring everything else that goes against it.

They've already been pushing age verification out in several countries.

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short answer: No. Apple already caved in advance. Longer answer: In the UK, Apple already implements age "verification" at the OS level, starting with IOS/IPadOS 26.4. If Apple had not implemented this, it would still be in compliance with UK law. Apple is anticipatorily obedient. A company like Apple has visibility of the legislative pipeline in its markets. Looks like the UK was a test bed. Lots of OECD countries,…

"In the UK..." Good thing I live in the US?

[deleted]

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#58
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investigation you linked to is entirely hallucinated by LLMs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659552 (tboteproject and the "Reddit researcher" are the same person). They also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is "under surveillance" because it got a few thousand requests from Google Cloud et al, most o…

I share your wariness of the LLM garbage, but I believe the conclusions are correct. This has Facebook's stink all over it. I worked there and know of what I speak.

So we should believe the hallucinations because they sound like something that could be true? Does the LLM in the middle somehow makes it more trustworthy than if GP had just shared their own pattern-matching conjecture?

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#59
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The investigation you linked to is entirely hallucinated by LLMs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659552 (tboteproject and the "Reddit researcher" are the same person). They also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is "under surveillance" because it got a few thousand requests from Google Cloud et al, most o…

I share your wariness of the LLM garbage, but I believe the conclusions are correct. This has Facebook's stink all over it. I worked there and know of what I speak.

There's an SMBC strip that makes your exact point, except they intended it as satire, whereas you seem to mean it in earnest.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification

#60

The breathless fearmongering over an age field on account set up is just completely over-the-top. This is probably the least bad out of all possible ways to implement age checking. The benefit of this is that it can short-circuit support for more onerous age verification. The writing has been on the wall for some time now: the era of completely unrestricted internet is coming to an end. The question is how awful will…

This needs to be simply fought because it's a measure that is supposed to fight the reluctance of the society, not actual problem. For the actual problem it's ineffective. This will be met by surprise once it's fully implemented and new, worse measures will be proposed. Hence, it needs to be cut off as early as possible to spare everyone the trouble.
Post reply on HN