this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
69 points (93.7% liked)

Technology

81911 readers
2918 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
69
An upcoming California law requires operating system providers to enforce basic mandatory age verification (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 5 hours ago by ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/61071136

Apparently this will include Linux...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Archr@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

FYI, I am not a lawyer.

Have you actually read the bill itself? Nowhere in it does it mention any of the things that you mentioned. It doesn't even mention ID cards at all.

What it does say is operating system providers shall "Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device". What we should look out for is that the law does not forbid OS providers from requiring IDs.

It does however require that OS providers "Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title." (emphasis mine)

I wonder how much this is news outlets overreacting to a proposed bill that is not actually that bad, or if this is some marketing against the bill by some Corp.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043

[โ€“] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It does however require that OS providers "Send only the minimum amount of information necessary to comply with this title and shall not share the digital signal information with a third party for a purpose not required by this title." (emphasis mine)

I wonder how much this is news outlets overreacting to a proposed bill that is not actually that bad

What do you mean, that's horrible on its own. None of this information should be necessary to run a computer. The computer shouldn't have to process this locally, let alone be mandated to upload it to someone's server.

Age verification is identity collection.