Kill The Cookie Banner

I am against legally requiring devices to transmit a signal that the user is a child to websites. What I want instead is to handle any content blocks client-side. Instead of legally requiring adult sites to verify the age of users, I'd prefer requiring that these sites self-label (or move to an obvious TLD like .xxx), which makes it easy for the device to block it. This accomplishes the same thing without the tracking infrastructure and privacy concerns. I don't want my kid's device blasting that they're under 13 to every sketchy website that asks.

> It puts the onus on the website operator to not only prevent presenting content to wrong age bracket users, but also to determine the age bracket of the user.

I believe AB 1856 does not do that any more. As of July 1st, they amended it to remove all requirements on website operators, except one. What it does now is make the app's age signal apply "across all platforms of an application, including an internet website [owned by the same developer]." e.g. the Facebook app gets the age signal, now facebook.com knows the same signal.

Also AB1856 (and the DAAA which it amends) has no content policing requirements. All it does it force apps and websites to know the age of their users, which then triggers liability under other laws like the up-and-coming social media ban AB 1709 (which I'm against). Or CA's Age Appropriate Design Code act (which I believe is getting tossed around in the courts for First Amendment concerns).

As far as presenting a filtered view of a website, e.g. Reddit blocking some subreddits for kids, I'm open to debating this. I personally think it doesn't work and platforms will just over-regulate or wholesale ban minors (Claude, character.ai) rather than comply with the patchwork of laws in different jurisdictions. Or they'll spin off a heavily locked-down version for kids only, like YouTube Kids.

Steam is an illustrative example of how hard it is to get the filtering right. They're trying to comply with OSA but there's still a lot of information leakage between the kid-safe portion and the rest of the platform: https://youtu.be/hOaGUfy6NTw

> Drivers are forced to take lessons and get licensed for the precise reason that we know people can't take the responsibility on their own.

Ok, I see what you mean here, but I'd argue that the licensing requirement is only acceptable because the risk is both grave and impossible to limit to just yourself.

We don't require a license or training to use a table saw at home even though table saws are also dangerous unless used very wisely. That's because the risk is mainly limited to the user and at worst, someone who chooses to be nearby that table saw.

To bring it back to my point, I'm not discussing the licensing part, I'm saying rather that we don't make excuses for people who refuse to learn the rules of the road, or how to safely use a table saw, and we don't say that it's the job of wood manufacturers to somehow secure the table saws of ignorant DIYers. The responsibility is on the user of the car, the table saw, or the browser. If the user chooses to never learn the basic operation of their tool, they might get hurt. And if we do have to regulate something, we should regulate the saw, and give it clearly-labeled safety features. Not regulate all pieces of wood.

And in my opinion, the 'danger' from cookies is so trivial compared to any real dangers (mainly the danger of seeing ads that are "too good"), that I am not convinced anyone needs to be protected from it by a third party.

But still, let's say I agree that there's even an important problem to be solved.

We can (A) regulate the browser to dumb this down for these ignorant people, and have the problem guaranteed solved, or (B) we can burden every single company that operates a website, and rely on enforcement since otherwise it's all honor-system.

The EU and so far multiple US states, have chosen the stupid option B.

The ads that perform online are the direct response type.

I hate all these patterns too, but interestingly it feels like I hate it more because the whole Internet has been designed around the "free to read with ads" paradigm -- we've been taught that if you can see something, get the URL and share it, so that others can reference the thing you're trying to either comment on or raise awareness about.

With paper newspapers or magazines it wasn't ever a problem, because if I subscribed to the Dallas Morning News, I automatically got all their articles, and even stories that weren't local to Dallas were covered by them too. I didn't need a subscription to the San Francisco Chronicle and didn't miss it.

Today, if someone is reading an article in the Chronicle, or even the Verge, it's a huge problem for them to share it with someone else even if the other person actually pays for subscriptions to say, NY Times and Bloomberg. Even if all four of those publications each have articles just summarizing the same 5 bullet points.

I'd blame the "news" industry as a whole for not implementing some kinds of reciprocal agreements. Even giant news conglomerates like Media News Group[1] who publish dozens of major US papers don't give you a simple subscription that at least covers all their own properties. I'd argue that they should try harder to stand up some shared subscription services with heavy reciprocal benefits and revenue sharing, so that most people would be able to read most paywalled articles with one monthly subscription. That industry has no one to blame but themselves for not figuring this one out.

[1] https://www.medianewsgroup.com/about-us/