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

61–70 of 525 posts

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

#61

Post by Bender »

iamalizard wrote: post #55
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…

No such mandates should take place at all.

I agree fundamentally and ideologically but we are past that point. The toothpaste is already out of the tube as they say. There will be restrictions so all I can do is suggest more sensible restrictions that keep the control on the client side and do not share data. Any data shared can and will be abused, leaked, sold, stolen without consequence.

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

#62

Post by Refreeze5224 »

softwaredoug wrote: post #5

All this because public institutions have lost the will or capacity to regulate the companies. So they switch to burdening the consumers.

Another way to say it is that capital is operating as it always has: in its own interest.

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

#63

Post by mikestorrent »

iamalizard wrote: post #55
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…

No such mandates should take place at all.

I agree with you, as a longtime free speech believe.

but... I would also like to keep my kids from seeing the very worst of the internet before they're ready to handle it. I tried using a PiHole but Firefox DNS-over-HTTPS nullifies that now. It's not realistic for me to be watching over their shoulders 24/7; what can I do to keep them away from stuff 99% of people agree isn't for children to see, without something like this?

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

#64

Post by zeroCalories »

zarzavat wrote: post #46
zeroCalories wrote: post #22

[flagged]

Young children should be supervised when they access the internet. Adolescents are not going to be defeated by such easily bypassed technical measures. These laws are a trojan horse for control of the adult population. The relative anonymity and freedom of the internet is a threat to those who spend their lives seeking power over others.

[flagged]

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

#65

Post by keernan »

zeroCalories wrote: post #22

[flagged]

I have 7 grandchildren with the oldest being 10. My daughters are very strict about not providing their kids with devices that have internet access. The only one of the 7 who has a phone has a flip phone with no internet access. There simply is no reason to provide young children with access to the internet.

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

#66

Post by Bender »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #60
Bender wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and others can adapt. RTA header? Added to potential adult or user-contributed category.

Right, no news sites for kids.

Right, no news sites for kids.

Correct. Until parent or guardian puts in password next to the text that says "Approve this site, forever."

You gave me an idea. Maybe there could be categories similar in concept to those that exist in corporate firewalls today that say things like:

- News Category (Known to be SFW)

- News Category (That may be NSFW)

- Child friendly sites

- Social media sites

... and so on.

This could be crowd sourced, ideally in a way that can not be gamed. The masses could flag/report false claims. That, or just keep it simple. ad-hoc input of permitted sites by parent.

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

#67

Post by KolmogorovComp »

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.…

maybe at 7 and 10 they shouldn't use device connected to the internet without your active supervision at all? What will they miss?

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

#68

Post by bastard_op »

>> SteamOS could still be affected

Steam itself does age verification, which when you first boot a steamdesk, afaik it forces you to log into steam before you can do much of anything without some initial hackery. That said, once in there's nothing stopping them from launching into desktop mode, launching firefox, and watching pr0n that way.

Sadly the solution is still for parents to do real parenting, but that's like saying stupid people shouldn't breed.

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

#69

Post by zeroCalories »

lynndotpy wrote: post #39
zeroCalories wrote: post #22

[flagged]

When I hear that people own cameras, what I hear is that people are okay with children being harmed for the sight convenience of the freedom to create photographs. Let's just be honest about how we're calculting things: You think living without a camera, which is how humanity has lived for 99% of its existence, is worse than children being groomed.

[flagged]

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

#70

Post by JoshTriplett »

cortesoft wrote: post #25
alpinisme wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tools would you want?

Honestly, I don’t have a perfect answer. It really depends on what the service is. My main thing is I want to be able to opt in or out of various filters. I don’t mind if my kids want to listen to music that has swear words, but I don’t want them watching videos where they give horribly sexist pickup artist advice. This isn’t just about what I feel is age appropriate, either. It is also about what I know about my kid…

> My 10 year old hates scary things, and she gets completely freaked out when they show scary movie previews. I would like to be able to block those for her.

The difference between this and the usual "parental control" mechanisms is that what you're describing here is something the child wants to cooperate with, voluntarily. In which case, you don't need a mechanism that makes it absolutely impossible; you need a mechanism for helping them not see things they don't want to see. That's something some adults also want (e.g. tools for preventing oneself going to Facebook, or going to TVTropes for too long).

Post reply on HN