How about the government focus on taking rights away from people who have actually harmed kids, like I don't know, maybe a giant pedophile ring in plain sight? Instead the focus on taking rights from everyone because someone, sometime, in the future harm a child.
this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
1014 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
84923 readers
3708 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Because it's not about protecting children, obviously.
When someone with certain personality problems tells blatant lies, they are really only trying to convince themselves. You exist only as an introject inside their minds, you are not real to them, it does not matter if you don't believe them because it doesn't need to make sense to you.
It’s being exempt because the Government can’t enforce this requirement on FOSS. Linux isn’t managed by a corporation and I don’t think people realize this yet.
How about they spend their time revamping parental controls instead? The age gate stuff is clear about user data collection and nothing else.
Because they don't give a single fuck about the kids, unless they're pedos fucking kids, then they give all the fucks.
Exactly. Age control is obviously needed I am so glad I'm not a kid that has to navigate the social algorithms of our time.
That said this is obviously a law being pushed by the technofascist companies like meta and their goal is always more power, in this case more data. It's crazy how many law makers just do what they are told. they are doing the same with trying to lock down 3Dprinters.
More local control in operating systems as well as parental controls in platforms like YouTube where they could have full control to turn off the algorithm, maybe even a browser api where you need admin to enable adult mode. But based on everything I've seem from companies like google and meta they don't care in the slightest about the children as long as they make their bag
Does this not just defeat the purpose of this bill? My god the people are so fucking stupid.
It would still affect Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
I’m a DevOps engineer and my employer runs a lot of Linux instances in AWS. I’d love for these politicians to explain to me how age verification of Linux web servers should work for auto-scaling environments where instances are spun up and terminated automatically based on traffic volume. I’d also like to know if I should be using the age of our CEO, the age of our company (thanks to Citizens United), or something else.
politicians are far to stupid to know any of that. The only computer they know is their phone and maybe a laptop.
Honestly I wonder if this is why the amendment is being suggested. AI products in particular are likely to be interacting with a lot of websites that will be required to verify ages, and I'm sure California in particular is loath to make waves that might throw that revenue stream into doubt.
Obviously corporations just become exempt from the law. And any laws, any not.
I'd like to see them pair a bluetooth headset to a phone.
How old is that headset ?
If it's over 18 years old, does it automatically pass age verification
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’d love for these politicians to explain to me how age verification of Linux web servers should work for auto-scaling environments where instances are spun up and terminated automatically based on traffic volume.
Come on, can't be that tedious. What could it be 200-300 instances tops per day? My kid sister does that many selfies.
Also, is each docker container a "computer" of its own? After all, I could use different distro base images!
You are required to have age verification. We licence our age verification on an instance basis. An instance is defined as whatever makes us the most money, or alternatively causes you the most pain.
You know. A worst case scenario.
Obviously uhhhh uhhhhhhh put your ID in a GitHub secret and uhhhhhh social security number and uhhhhhh
Yeah, I don't even know what you're talking about, and that makes me extra certain that politicians definitely don't know what you're talking about. It is nice to see them perhaps taking into account expert opinions on this subject, but 1 for 100 doesn't make for a good average.
The govt…. Uhhh…. Finds a way (to fuck shit up)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck age verification, fuck it all to hell. Not for Linux or any other OS or device.
I think that the major current closed-source OSes today are busily harvesting all the data they can anyway, and the vendors probably don't care much about also grabbing age, but stuff like, oh...is it illegal under this law to distribute proprietary versions of older OSes now? Like, classic MacOS, say. That's definitely not open-source. And Apple is not going to go back and do a new release of classic MacOS to add age verification to it. But...there's still some old software that you need classic MacOS to run. So...is it illegal to distribute essential software required to run classic MacOS software in California as of the middle of next year?
I mean, you might be infringing on copyright as well, but Apple may be okay with people copying classic MacOS around, as they can't really make any money off it today. But this is the State of California, not Apple, that would act here.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The controversy became particularly heated after reports suggested platforms like SteamOS could still fall under the law due to their ties to proprietary application ecosystems.
Ehhh. I think that'd be a hard argument to make. I mean, the OS is open-source. You can download it and modify it and reinstall it or whatever. Sure, it runs Steam, which is proprietary, but so does any other GNU/Linux distro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SteamOS
The core operating system is free and open-source software, while the Steam client remains proprietary.
Like, the only way in which SteamOS differs from another Linux distro is that Valve, which makes the proprietary client, also happens to be distributing the OS.
See you in a year or 2.
Play as old as times:
- Company announces garbage change
- People freak out
- Company says ok we will only do half of the garbage
- People calm down and forget
- Company later does the rest of the garbage
- Nobody cares because half of it is already there
Foot in the door technique is a timeless way to get what you want. People seem oblivious to it.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
It’s called “parenting.” Yes, it’s harder these days with the internet and literally everything “right there.” But it’s still your job as a parent.
ANYTIME ANYONE imposes restrictions “for the children” - there’s something nefarious going on. If it’s a politician-they are looking to build a database for $. If it’s your priest-he’s banging the alter boy after ccd, or hates himself so much for being gay he’s lashing out at the lgbtq community. If it’s a company-they’ve either been threatened into doing it or more likely are on the take with a fat payday. If it’s a developer adding it into Linux, they should expect fierce skepticism and backlash from the community.
It’s NEVER about the children. It’s always an alternative motive. If they actually cared about kids, they’d make sure they were fed at school, they’d invest in their education, or they’d invest into social programs to help out those less fortunate.
I don't think it's any coincidence that this is occurring at the same time companies like Palantir are signing government contracts left and right and mega-sized data centers are sprouting up all over the country.
load more comments
(15 replies)
So BSD will have to implement age verification?
Article says open source OS so BSD should be safe.
Under the original law, operating systems would be required to request a user’s age or birth date during device setup, then expose an “age bracket signal” to apps and app stores. The law, which defined brackets such as “under 13,” “13–15,” “16–17,” and “18+,” immediately raised questions about how such requirements would apply to decentralized, open-source software ecosystems.
I kind of wonder what software running as a service on Windows is supposed to identify itself as if it's non-interactively downloading software.
A lot of unanswered practical implementation questions surrounding this. Questions like how and why about a lot of things.
A question I have is why all the separate age brackets would be necessary. If the purpose is keeping kids from accessing porn or other "adult" material, why do they need any other categories aside from under 18 and 18+? Those age brackets read more like the kind of demographic categories advertisers, data brokers, etc are interested in than a simple age verification check.
Tbh, this is just a massive stack of misguidedness.
First, look at what the original law does:
- OS needs to know the age.
- OS itself doesn't do anything with the age
- OS needs to provide the age to apps and services asking for it
- Apps and services need to block content based on the age provided with the OS
- If the OS doesn't provide an age, apps and services have to block as if the user was a toddler
Removing the requirement for the OS to provide an age doesn't change anything at all, because someone running an OS that doesn't provide an age will just be blocked everywhere. That's not a solution, that's a joke to appease idiots who don't know what the law does.
This is just as misguided as the backlash against systemd who added an age field to the user account to allow people to be still able to access age-restricted content.
The actually relevant part that people should be combatting is the requirement for apps and services to do age verification using the OS-provided age. The OS age field doesn't matter.
I wish people actually read the california law, it's rather short, and covers a lot of the "gotchas" people are coming up with (e.g. No it doesn't apply to servers).
I don't like age verification laws (Especially since I live in a jurisdiction with one already in effect) but at least argue against the law itself rather than a strawman version people heard about via social media.
This is so common online.
Bad Thing happens.
People argue against Bad Thing incredibly fucking badly. Just abysmal. They don't understand why or how the Bad Thing happened. They didn't read the document containing Bad Thing. They don't know who or what is involved with Bad Thing or where. Nonetheless, they vehemently argue against Bad Thing, using only their imagination as source material.
Someone with more experience fighting Bad Thing shows up in the comments, tries to argue against the misinformation, only to inevitably be accused of defending the Bad Thing.
view more: next ›