Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

pcgamer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 768 posts

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#621

Post by eleventyseven »

JodieBenitez wrote: post #524
eleventyseven wrote: post #215

Headline is wrong. There is no verification requirement. All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. You can lie, just like porn sites today. I thought HNers wanted parents to govern their children's use of technology with these kinds of mechanisms.

> You can lie, just like porn sites today. In the US maybe, but where I am you can't fap in peace without using a VPN or have some kind of age verification. Some of them being baroque. Example: "We analyze your email’s digital footprint (history and reputation) against trusted databases. This is often enough to confirm that you're of legal age."

This is an article about California.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#622

Post by wredcoll »

wraptile wrote: post #413
wredcoll wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, those parents whose kids died from tainted milk products sure were lazy. How dare they cry that the state should do something?

How is giving spoiled milk equivalent to not being able to talk with your child on how the computer works?

> not being able to talk with your child on how the computer works?

What?

"The internet" is extremely widely available and full of hazards of all sorts, some intentional, some deliberate.

I'm pushing back on this idea that it's desirable or even possible for "the parent" to completely protect their children from these hazards. Most of them can't even protect themselves.

We can demand that services, especially child accessible ones, be safer, without also expecting parents to abandon all responsibility.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#623

Post by eleventyseven »

gatlin wrote: post #273
wredcoll wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selecting an age choice from a drop down is in no way verification. The original post was low effort flame baiting. There's an argument to be made that it should be ignored, but it's hard to say.

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

Hey gatlin, are you going to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of the word "verification"?

Just delete your account.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#624

Post by wredcoll »

ddtaylor wrote: post #461
wraptile wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is giving spoiled milk equivalent to not being able to talk with your child on how the computer works?

The argument is that they are selling a product they know is "spoiled", but the analogy breaks down and actually becomes more like you allow your children to smoke cigarettes or dink alcohol regularly. They often knew they were lying and saying they were over 13 to access services, but hey, your kid can't be the only not one smoking cigarettes or drinking, right?

Not too long ago, it wasn't that uncommon for children to smoke. Hell, now they're starting to vape.

What percentage of those do you think are being "allowed" to do so by their parents?

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#625

Post by eleventyseven »

gatlin wrote: post #222
eleventyseven wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Headline is wrong, and you didn't read the article. There is no verification requirement. You are a bad HN poster and should feel bad. All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. You can lie, just like porn sites today. I thought HNers wanted parents to govern their children's use of technology with these kinds of mechanisms. > There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in Calif…

> All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. This is the age verification requirement which you rudely and incorrectly said doesn't exist. Nothing is done with the data (for now) but age is in fact verified on the assumption that the user doesn't lie. Instead of lengthy condescending missives about the behavior of other users, you should instead write "I'm sorry for being ne…

Gatlin, you need to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of "verification". This is truly embarrassing for you. It really brings down the quality of the discussion.

Re: A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

#626

Post by nostrademons »

dragonwriter wrote: post #552
vineyardmike wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there are some enforcement questions here, especially around non commercial OSes, most of your reactions are clearly based on the headline alone. It defines operating system in the law. This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game console…

> It defines operating system in the law. No, it doesn't. It defines the following terms: "account holder", "age bracket data", "application", "child", "covered application store", "developer", "operating system provider", "signal", and "user". > This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on gen…

In typical jury trials, the jury is instructed that any terms not defined in the relevant statutes are to have their common-sense, ordinary meanings as understood by the jury. The jury is usually also selected to be full of reasonable, moderate people, and folks who are overly pedantic usually get excused during voir dire.

Do you really think a pool of 12 people off the street is going to consider an embedded system, wi-fi router, or traffic light as an "operating system" under this law? Particularly since they don't even have accounts or users as a common-sense member of the public would understand them?

Post reply on HN