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

511–520 of 525 posts

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

#511

Post by kyledrake »

tardedmeme wrote: post #488
kyledrake wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law defines it as a product quality issue. Meaning you can return it for a refund and a company that keeps selling broken products may be ordered to recall them or to stop selling them until they're fixed. And if they refuse to do all of this and resist, what happens to them? If you want a sample, stop paying your taxes, stuff your money under your mattress and see what ultimately happens. Just because our gove…

idk, what happens to someone who keeps giving away lead-painted toys for free?

Apparently he/she gets equivocated as a porn star by authoritarians on hacker news arguing against their own self interest.

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

#512

Post by bsdetector »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #494
bsdetector wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> If there's no economic incentive to tag content then it's not valuable content for kids. Those two things are completely disjoint. In one case you're measuring the value of the content to the platform and in the other you're measuring the value of the content to the kids . Suppose there is some content that the platform would get $10 in ad revenue to show to kids, would cost $100 to classify, and is worth $1000 to…

The cost to the content provider can be reduced to zero by the parents, by allowing it in parental controls.

So the maximum cost to a provider is capped at convincing parents to disable blocking of the content. That could be an unfathomably large sum for pornhub or negligible for wikipedia.

The question then is what's cheaper, paying to have parents enable the content (for instance advertising to make that choice acceptable) or rating the content? If it's the former that's essentially the same value parents place on blocking that content.

You're looking at rating content in this default-block scheme as a cost, but really it's a discount. You're paying a smaller amount to rate the content "G - general audience" then convincing parents to allow unrated content.

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

#513

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#514

Post by arendtio »

daemin wrote: post #315
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.

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.

Yes, the data protection people are always blamed for the banners when, in fact, the marketing people are responsible.

If you build a website without all that tracking stuff and without 'free' services from the data collection companies Google and Facebook, then you have a pretty good chance of not requiring a banner at all, because for logins, etc., you are allowed to use cookies et al. without requiring an opt-in.

But I never saw anybody at the OMR being proud about the state of cookie banners they created...

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

#515

Post by LtWorf »

1718627440 wrote: post #504
d1sxeyes wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 'the law' does clearly state that, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong, and honestly it's a point of pedantry, the enforcement indicates that you're right about the actual expectation, and definitely you're right about the actual usage.

> 8. When authorities were asked whether they would consider that a banner which does not provide for accept and refuse/reject/not consent options on any layer with a consent button is an infringement of the ePrivacy Directive, a vast majority of authorities considered that the absence of refuse/reject/not consent options on any layer with a consent button of the cookie consent banner is not in line with the requirem…

Going in "reading" mode in firefox also works in many cases.

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

#516

Post by d1sxeyes »

1718627440 wrote: post #504
d1sxeyes wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 'the law' does clearly state that, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong, and honestly it's a point of pedantry, the enforcement indicates that you're right about the actual expectation, and definitely you're right about the actual usage.

> 8. When authorities were asked whether they would consider that a banner which does not provide for accept and refuse/reject/not consent options on any layer with a consent button is an infringement of the ePrivacy Directive, a vast majority of authorities considered that the absence of refuse/reject/not consent options on any layer with a consent button of the cookie consent banner is not in line with the requirem…

I agree with all the points here, but the task force report is not law, and this is not “clearly stated” (this specific phrase is fine, but the rest of the document is full of disclaimers).

It’s a useful guide on how the law is likely to be interpreted, and likely influences the interpretation itself, but my inner pedant is not satisfied.

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

#517

Post by ClikeX »

compass_copium wrote: post #414
ClikeX wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had a teen whose main device was an iPad 4ish years ago and now a tween whose main device is a Windows laptop. I like Windows' implementation better--it's more granular when it comes to site access on Edge, and allows time limits in specific programs rather than categories of apps. I remember some apps that were clearly games had themselves listed as education apps.

You can do specific apps on Apple too, though. You can select the entire category, or expand it and select individual apps.

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

#518

Post by 1718627440 »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #516
1718627440 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 8. When authorities were asked whether they would consider that a banner which does not provide for accept and refuse/reject/not consent options on any layer with a consent button is an infringement of the ePrivacy Directive, a vast majority of authorities considered that the absence of refuse/reject/not consent options on any layer with a consent button of the cookie consent banner is not in line with the requirem…

I agree with all the points here, but the task force report is not law, and this is not “clearly stated” (this specific phrase is fine, but the rest of the document is full of disclaimers). It’s a useful guide on how the law is likely to be interpreted, and likely influences the interpretation itself, but my inner pedant is not satisfied.

Yeah, it was the closest I could find, but I don't really care that much to search the actual laws. I would expect it to be true, it's basically what you hear in the news and all the advise says that you should do that, when you create a GDPR-compliant website.

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

#519

Post by anigbrowl »

jwitthuhn wrote: post #222
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" This is what I intend to do. To just let lawmakers get away with passing bullshit because "of course they will" is a defeatist attitude that I don't advocate. That is why it is so important to be loud about this incredibly obvious disingenuous behavior. Make sure everyone knows the people advocating this do not care o…

First of all, that probably won't work, second of all it likely won't work because you are attributing made-up motivations to people you are pissed off with. Hence my use of the word 'paranoid'.

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

#520

Post by anigbrowl »

some_random wrote: post #449
anigbrowl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEarn to take a win as a win. People who are unable to look at anything without seeing themselves being scammed are clinically paranoid.

This would be a reasonable take if lawmakers hadn't been trying to scam us our of our rights since those rights were first put to paper.

More paranoia. What about the lawmakers who have tried to expand rights? I'm sick of these fallacies of composition.
Post reply on HN