[flagged]
You put your child in the driver’s seat and expect others to make sure it doesn’t make a wrong turn? Did you really have to give it the keys to this hypothetical car instead of, say, LEGO?
US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
71–80 of 369 posts
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#72> The term “operating system” means software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. > The term “operating system provider” means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. So excited to see the GNU vs. Linux debate finally land in court.
This is horribly vague. >a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones. Does a car count as a mobile device?
Is a scientific calculator, like kids are expected to use at school, a general purpose device?
It has an OS, a network stack, an interpreter. Usually used for games as much as for classwork.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#73> The term “operating system” means software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. > The term “operating system provider” means a person that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. So excited to see the GNU vs. Linux debate finally land in court.
Brazil just passed the exact same law, nearly unanimously. Even the wording and definitions are exactly the same. This is scary as hell.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No. I think LLMs are garbage. Separately, and unrelated: I think Facebook is behind these bills. The LLM may be garbage and still sometimes produce a correct result.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I'm confused by how my point got so lost.
I think Facebook is behind these bills. I think that from personal experience working at Facebook.
That an LLM may have arrived at the same conclusion is unrelated. LLMs are garbage. Don't use them.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#76[flagged]
In short: you seem to want the Internet to parent your child. I have kids and do not want any of this for them, because all of it is a slippery slope to falling deeper into the surveillance state.
As a parent: do your job and take responsibility for your kids. While it's not trivial this also isn't overly complicated anymore.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is horribly vague. >a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones. Does a car count as a mobile device?
Car is clearly a mobile device; it has a touchscreen and an IMEI. Going to be fun when my washing machine asks me to upload a scan of my passport to the CIA before it will open the door.
were you trying to launder any dirty laundry :)
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is horribly vague. >a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. It leaves open to interpretation if it applies to all computers, or just general purpose ones. Does a car count as a mobile device?
Car is clearly a mobile device; it has a touchscreen and an IMEI. Going to be fun when my washing machine asks me to upload a scan of my passport to the CIA before it will open the door.
No worries, by that time so many people will have lost their jobs because of AI that you can hire a homeless person to register all your devices for a snickers. Dirty Mike and the Boys are going to own a lot of mobile devices, and control the world trade of snickers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FkK8ZFE7Y0
The CIA hates that trick.
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No. I think LLMs are garbage. Separately, and unrelated: I think Facebook is behind these bills. The LLM may be garbage and still sometimes produce a correct result.
Ok, but then we should look for an actual source beyond "Don't worry that it's garbage, it smells ok in this case."
Re: US Bill Mandates On-Device Age Verification
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta. Specifically to undercut Apple.
Nope. Apple have been enthusiastic in their implementation of it even without it being required in several countries.
One thing which companies don't like, is a law suit.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/business/character-ai-google-...
If something is codified in law, they can comply with the law fully, and yet not have any real backlash from users. This can also shield them from many lawsuits. Conversely, if they start ratcheting down age-verification on their own, users will become quite upset. If they don't ratchet it down, then... as you can see, potential lawsuit.
And this isn't just about LLMs, once the concept of "a platform is liable for harm" happens, it's about everything. Including content other people slap into an app store. And the US has been talking about section 230 removal, countries around the world are reducing such exclusions, so the wind is blowing towards even more liability for platforms.
If you look at Google's recent moves to identify all developers prior to install on Android, there may even be some of this in that. How can they ban someone from publishing illegal material, or material Google will be liable for, if they don't even know who the publisher is? They'll just slide into a new account. (Note, I said "some" not "all", there is often not just one reason for an action)
So I suspect that the push is from all online platforms of any size or scope. It will shield them, protect them from liability, whist at the same time redirecting user ire at the legislation, not them. HN types might still brood, but the average person won't have insight. "Protect the children" as a reason works for the average person, it works very very well, and really, that's what a lot of these lawsuits are about.
So I point back to such lawsuits as the start of all of this. And I see it as why there is a push from Apple, Google, Meta and so on. And simply because I'm saying "big corp wants this, not just Meta", doesn't mean I'm saying "Meta isn't doing anything".
Meta can be pushing this, hard, whilst at the same time every other large corp can be working towards the same outcome.