Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Here's my slight defense of something like this, in theory. I have not read the text of the bill.

    If OSes build a standards-based way to query age of user that is logged-in, where non-admins are not allowed to adjust the age bucket, then parents can configure devices on first use to have an OS-wide enforcement of age controls.

    Apps and sites would query the OS, not individual app/site accounts, for user age and act accordingly.

    Apps can then lock out certain features like algo feeds and adult content more consistently.

    Responsibility for proper use is still on the parent, and no verification process is put upon the operators of sites.

    Not sure how I actually think about this; I'm only putting this out for discussion.

    by unethical_ban
  • Serious question: This is a out-of-box "ask for age" requirement. No one is "verifying" anything. Why are we using this misleading headline? Face scans, ID cards, all that stuff that makes everyone nervous, are specifically not a part of this. To imply that it is verification is propaganda.

    As a parent, I'd be very happy with this "age declaration" method, as I also don't think the 'verification' others push for is at all worth the risks. All parents want is to put the devices permanently into a mode that flags it to third parties as belonging to a minor, so they can't just hold up their hands and say "idk they said they're 18" like they do today.

    by xp84
  • What does that mean, practically? The person who installed linux on that particular device is liable?

    >no algorithmic feeds for minors by default

    Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?

    by LPisGood
  • Since TFA can't be bothered, here's the text of the actual bill: https://my.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&...
    by InitialLastName
  • So in red states porn is being used, and in blue states TikTok and Instagram are being used. Is anyone tracking who is behind the concerted efforts here? For example, which organizations, executives, lobbyists and politicians are valid and responsible parties?
    by bnjms
  • Not that I'm condoning it, but this law requires self-declaration, not verification. It might sound pedantic but the practical difference is huge.

    Self-declaration means that the system asks the user to declare if they are a minor. Nothing is verified.

    Age verification typically means a system which checks ID or has other enforcement measures to try to verify age.

    by Aurornis
  • I feel like all of these laws are being designed backwards. Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion.

    Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.

    by kej
  • Linux distro founder here (stagex)

    I will never be compelled to implement this, and would never merge it.

    Every release requires quorum signatures by an international maintainer team, and the distro is designed to work offline-first, with some variants not even supporting network drivers in the kernel, so Illinois legislators can eat shit.

    by lrvick

Explore Birbla archives