I saw the developers of MidnightBSD state that they are going to block users in California when this law gets put into place. I hope that more OSs do the same. Especially Windows, it could be devastating to California’s economy and make them, along with other states and countries, reconsider their decisions on age verification.
I don’t live in California but I’m interested in seeing if there are any other OSs that will be blocking California users. I’m probably fine to just continue using Linux Mint but I’m open to trying other distros/OSs in order to participate in this protest if Linux Mint doesn’t.
In my opinion, it is foolish and shortsighted of these developers to just block the state and move on. (I do live in Cali but hear me out)
Whether people like it or not we are stuck with this law now. A law that leaves all of the implementation details up in the air. The big corporations, Microsoft and Apple, are not going to be pulling out of California. Do we really want to leave all the power to determine how this system works to them? Leave the 4th largest economy in the world entirely in their hands?
If we ignore what is going on here then we will give up our chance to even propose a minimal acceptable solution to this law. One that does not require ID or face scans.
I desperately hope that the linux foundation is taking this seriously and is already looking at implementing a solution.
This law aims to place at least some of the responsibility back onto the parents that allow their children to run wild on the internet. Is the law perfect? Absolutely not. Would I repeal it if I could? Yes, of course. But this is the hand we are dealt.
I mean, it’d suck for all of us outside of California to have more surveillance just because y’all have that law, and it’s absolutely not really about protecting children, it’s about surveillance
I’d love for you to go into more detail on how this is surveillance since that seems to be your main concern.
The law does not require providing IDs or face scans or any other identifiable information. There are clauses in the law limiting where the data gets sent to and that if data does need to be sent then it is the minimum that is necessary.
The law only requires that an account holder “indicate[s] the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device”. Outside of the abstract the law not once mentions any type of verification that must happen.
Also it’s a California law. It doesn’t affect anyone outside of Cali so if you are affected take it up with your os provider or fork your distro.
So the input is not verifiable? This will not work and sounds more that it’s not intended to do anything other than shift the Overton Window. California has a huge fascist issue in Silicon Valley.
The point isn’t to verify your age the point is to have the account holder (the parent) attest to the age of the user (their child). If the parent lies and it negatively impacts the child then the parent can be fined.
It also penalizes apps that see the user’s age is in a lower bracket and still shows them sensitive content.
There is a huge fascist issue everywhere in the US. SV is not special in that respect.
Just moving the Overton window is not a good argument for or against anything. If you are concerned about what data the government may gather then say that and we can have a real discussion.
I am going to assume that you are referencing the epstein files. This is not a law about that, if you want them to be prosecuted then that is something you should direct at your congressperson. Not at a state level law about age attestation.
I’m worried about collection of data. If attestation is useful, then why not just offer it as something to market for only those who need it, like parents who want to restrict for children? Just make a law that devices sold after 2026 cannot be given to kids under whatever age without attestation options. Even then, the device can have the option and not a requirement.
Edit: It’s absolutely imperative that we protect our information. Private info will be abused in the future to suppress dissent. The only reason they don’t do it more already is because then they would need to explain why human trafficking still exists and why drugs are still everywhere. They can’t both admit to having the tech while simultaneously allowing crime that the tech can prevent. They are probably making money off that type of crime. Hope that explains how I was relating everything. These measure will be used to remove your voice.
I saw the developers of MidnightBSD state that they are going to block users in California when this law gets put into place. I hope that more OSs do the same. Especially Windows, it could be devastating to California’s economy and make them, along with other states and countries, reconsider their decisions on age verification.
I don’t live in California but I’m interested in seeing if there are any other OSs that will be blocking California users. I’m probably fine to just continue using Linux Mint but I’m open to trying other distros/OSs in order to participate in this protest if Linux Mint doesn’t.
In my opinion, it is foolish and shortsighted of these developers to just block the state and move on. (I do live in Cali but hear me out)
Whether people like it or not we are stuck with this law now. A law that leaves all of the implementation details up in the air. The big corporations, Microsoft and Apple, are not going to be pulling out of California. Do we really want to leave all the power to determine how this system works to them? Leave the 4th largest economy in the world entirely in their hands?
If we ignore what is going on here then we will give up our chance to even propose a minimal acceptable solution to this law. One that does not require ID or face scans.
I desperately hope that the linux foundation is taking this seriously and is already looking at implementing a solution.
This law aims to place at least some of the responsibility back onto the parents that allow their children to run wild on the internet. Is the law perfect? Absolutely not. Would I repeal it if I could? Yes, of course. But this is the hand we are dealt.
(also it is midnightbsd)
I mean, it’d suck for all of us outside of California to have more surveillance just because y’all have that law, and it’s absolutely not really about protecting children, it’s about surveillance
I’d love for you to go into more detail on how this is surveillance since that seems to be your main concern.
The law does not require providing IDs or face scans or any other identifiable information. There are clauses in the law limiting where the data gets sent to and that if data does need to be sent then it is the minimum that is necessary.
The law only requires that an account holder “indicate[s] the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device”. Outside of the abstract the law not once mentions any type of verification that must happen.
Also it’s a California law. It doesn’t affect anyone outside of Cali so if you are affected take it up with your os provider or fork your distro.
So the input is not verifiable? This will not work and sounds more that it’s not intended to do anything other than shift the Overton Window. California has a huge fascist issue in Silicon Valley.
The point isn’t to verify your age the point is to have the account holder (the parent) attest to the age of the user (their child). If the parent lies and it negatively impacts the child then the parent can be fined.
It also penalizes apps that see the user’s age is in a lower bracket and still shows them sensitive content.
There is a huge fascist issue everywhere in the US. SV is not special in that respect.
It’s just shifting the Overton Window. Don’t fall for it. How many pedophiles do you see in jail? Protect the kids my ass.
Just moving the Overton window is not a good argument for or against anything. If you are concerned about what data the government may gather then say that and we can have a real discussion.
I am going to assume that you are referencing the epstein files. This is not a law about that, if you want them to be prosecuted then that is something you should direct at your congressperson. Not at a state level law about age attestation.
I’m worried about collection of data. If attestation is useful, then why not just offer it as something to market for only those who need it, like parents who want to restrict for children? Just make a law that devices sold after 2026 cannot be given to kids under whatever age without attestation options. Even then, the device can have the option and not a requirement.
Edit: It’s absolutely imperative that we protect our information. Private info will be abused in the future to suppress dissent. The only reason they don’t do it more already is because then they would need to explain why human trafficking still exists and why drugs are still everywhere. They can’t both admit to having the tech while simultaneously allowing crime that the tech can prevent. They are probably making money off that type of crime. Hope that explains how I was relating everything. These measure will be used to remove your voice.