• Auth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Its parents that are pushing for this stupid shit. I hate that the majority of voters want to implement robust age verification.

    • Archr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Are they? The law effectively only applies penalties to the parents. If you have not ready the law I highly recommend it. It is very short and says nothing about actually verifying the age of the user. It is equivalent of entering your age on steam or the “are you 18+” questions.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The law effectively only applies penalties to the parents.

        This applies penalties to far more than the parents. If I provide an operating system to a California parent, and my operating system does not include this “signal” apparatus, I can be fined $7500 every time a kid launches an application on my OS, for my deliberate decision not to implement their asinine horseshit.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I mean yea. If you don’t make a good faith effort to implement this age attestation page and api to allow apps to pull from it. Then yes. You would be liable.

          You could of course decide to not provide to residents of California and Colorado. No one is forcing you to provide for either of these states.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            And if I make a good faith effort, but it doesn’t work right, that’s a $2000 penalty. Every time that snot-nosed, unsupervised kid opens an app.

            You could of course decide to not provide to residents of California and Colorado.

            Yes, that’s exactly what Microsoft and Google want. They don’t want my FOSS OS competing with their commercial offerings.

            • Archr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              34 minutes ago

              No… The law literally says that if you make a good faith effort then you are not liable.

              An operating system provider or a covered application store that makes a good faith effort to comply with this title, taking into consideration available technology and any reasonable technical limitations or outages, shall not be liable for an erroneous signal indicating a user’s age range or any conduct by a developer that receives a signal indicating a user’s age range.

              Also the 2500$ is only for negligent violations.

              Look, I don’t want linux to leave Cali. I have primarily used linux for the past 8 years and have no desire to use windows anymore than I have to. But, as you said, the linux community throwing their hands up and deciding to exit Cali and Colorado is just playing right into Microsoft’s desires.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Is it? Honestly I think it’s just astroturfed. The entire imperial core suddenly got obsessed with regulating the internet after young people started waking up to the realities of the genocide in gaza.