• carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Since people aren’t reading the article and the headline is misleading. The law requires:

    • The OS ask the user their date of birth on account creation (kinda like the Steam date of birth prompts)
    • The OS provide an API that returns which of four age brackets the user fits in
    • Companies notified by the OS that the user is under age may be liable

    It was explicitly written by the authors not to mandate ID or facial recognition checks. You can lie about your date of birth. This basically creates a standard set of parental controls for parents configuring kids devices.

    I think that this might actually help with the whole discord facial recognition issue in places other than the UK by allowing them to offload the issue to parents setting up devices rather than collecting kids biometrics.

  • Digit@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    No biggie. I got ready for this in minutes after hearing about it.

    #!/usr/bin/env fish
    read -P "Are you old enough?  (yes/no)  " input
    if test "$input" = "yes" -o "$input" = "Yes"
    echo "Proceeding..."
    else
    echo "You are not old enough.  Exiting." 
    exit 1
    end
    

    … What? … Why are you all looking at me like that?

  • arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

    That would be a completely unworkable law since devices may not even have internet connectivity, or a user interface. And even if they did, it would have a chilling effect on software development in California.

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

    Even if they could enforce it which I highly doubt, this law is clearly a “Fuck you and your free software”.

    Like if a “too young” user have the skills to update the OS to change or even remove the age verification, who will be responsible? Yeah I don’t know either, but both will be bad.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Our president is fucking children, and you’re telling me I gotta verify my date of birth to run Linux, in the name of “Protecting the Children”?

    Get the fuck outta here.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    You guys are asking the wrong questions.

    How is Linux going to do this? There’s no server for the os to send the information to report the age of its users, no way of forcing its user base to comply and no single person or entity to fine, arrest or otherwise force into compliance.

    They made a law they cannot enforce.

  • emmy67@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    No doubt in response to Europe making its choice for software open source. Expect targeted attacks on FOSS to increase

  • wuffah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 days ago

    The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks.

    What even is the point of this then? To make shitty parents feel better?

    • Archr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      The point of it is actually the exact opposite. With this law the parent would set the age of their child. And if they decide to lie and their child is affected then they could be fined.

      The other thing it does is if a platform decides to ignore the age range of a user and it affects a child then they could be fined. But as long as they do best effort then it really only affects the parents.

      It also prevent platforms from requesting additional ID verification unless they have confidence that the age bracket of that user is incorrect.

      • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        There is absolutely no reason for an OS to know a users age. At this point it is certain that they can escalate this into including gender or even race.

        The children or even the teens have no meaning in this law - they are simply used as sugarcoating for the cyanide pill that’s aimed at the populace.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I agree until this law there was no reason for my os to know my age. This law creates that reason.

          Any law can be bad if we take into account the imagined future possibilities. Should we outlaw electricity because it might be used in some way to make nukes?

          If lawmakers try to issue further requirements for ID or facial scans then we can fight that. But until then there is nothing in this law that affects me outside of needing to enter a number less than 2005 when I setup my OS.

          If you don’t have any kids then you literally can’t be fined under this law.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            If your code is installed on a general purpose computing device that is provided to a child, you can be fined.

            If you provide code to the general public without requesting an age signal from the receiver’s OS, you can be fined.

            The attorney general of California might consider the JavaScript in your web page to be “content”. They might consider it to be an “application”. There is no clear distinction. If you request an age signal before providing content, you can be fined. If you fail to request an age signal before providing an application, you can be fined.

            The more I read about this law, the less I think it will actually go into effect. It’s going to face a whole series of injunctions. The lawyers are going to bill thousands of hours, but the whole thing is going to be scrapped.

          • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Should we outlaw electricity because it might be used in some way to make nukes?

            No, because there are lots of good uses for electricity. What is the good use of this bill?

            • Archr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              It prevents apps from asking for additional ID verification. I’d rather my os ask me for a number I am able to lie about than to have to send my ID to 30 different apps and data aggregators.

              Many people say that we should put more responsibility on the parents for what their kids are allowed to do online. This law does that.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The ONLY way this is even remotely OK is if the OS is set to 18+ all other age verification laws are satisfied and I don’t have to provide even more intrusive information to random companies.

      • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        IRL Community is dead in america, They know the only thing we have left to band together on against their Nazi regime is the internet. This is why they are trying to destroy anonymity.

        Soon it will be “Linux is for criminals” (like they said with graphene).

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    OK Newsom, you’ve lost me. I enjoyed your chaotic responses to the drumpf but you’ve officially lost me.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Realize, this has always been him. He is NOT a liberal. He is a conservative who calls himself a democrat.

        • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Government-mandated age verification stuff on private hardware is basically the opposite of liberal though

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Those who call themselves liberal have been doing shit like this for so long that this rank hypocrisy is part of what it means to be liberal.

            If liberals don’t like it, they should have had some integrity instead of ridiculing the concept as a “purity test.”

      • Digit@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yup.

        Welcome to newspeak, USA-flavor.

        Still drinking hair of the dog to nurse the McCarthyian redscare hangover.

        Layers deep into the newspeak. Liberal, conservative, democrat… all these terms already many contortions and inversions distanced from original meaning. Soon, even “him”, “he” and “himself” too. Then even “is” and “not”, and then the CIA’s work will be done.

      • Auth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        He is still overwhelmingly liberal and progressive. Calling him conservative is insane.

        • Digit@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          If only all those agents hadn’t told us to not use the political compass, we might be less lost now. :3

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          He is basically as conservative as you can be here in California while holding a state wide elected position and even that may not be true anymore with how things have shifted since the last governor election. Point is he is generally on the more conservative end of Californian politics, hell I know some Schwarzenegger style conservatives who are more progressive than him.

    • treesquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      He’s not even making most of those responses to Trump. His social media manager is doing it. He’s still just another Howard Schultz. “I like the idea of equality as long as rich people don’t have to reduce the rate at which they become richer.”

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 days ago

    Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about “complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”

    then why did you fucking sign it in the first place??

    words cannot describe the depths of my seething hatred for the complete, museum grade, massive piece of shit that is Gavin Newsom

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      People already hate him this much, and he wants to run for president. Because Democrats didn’t lose badly enough last time.

    • BranBucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Because it’s a metric, a bullet point, and campaign speech fodder. Newsome thinks of his position in terms of a career rather than an office, his job isn’t to lead a nation towards what’s right or wrong, it’s to pander so that he can be re-elected or elected to higher office.

      The bullshit way that lobbying groups conduct polling and market research means they he’s chronically out of touch and that his focus is on perpetuating his time in office so he can continue to “represent the people”, making a calling out of bowing to the desires of the mis-informed, outraged, panicked mob he believes his electorate to be instead of actually having a spine and exercising good judgement.

      The consequences of shoddy legislation take second place to being able to declare he did something to “keep kids safe”. It doesn’t even have to work, all that matters is having something to wave around and back up that claim. Something to placate the plebeians and let him continue to do what he does best… listen to lobbyists who are lying about what people think.

      Why? Because that’s what gets people elected these days. Despite being on a foundation of pure bullshit, somehow it works. So he goes along with it, encourages it, and remains in office as a result.