In a blog post Richell notes that the New York version as far worse since it "explicitly forbids self-reporting and leaves the allowed methods to regulations written by the Attorney General" and so developers of operating systems and devices would have to have more than just your date of birth to put you into some age bracket like the California law seems to allow.
These types of laws seem to be popping up around the US. How long until this plague spreads to other countries?
15 Comments
Ftumch@lemmy.today · 26 pts · 160d
These laws are stupid. If you want to protect kids, you should focus on getting parents the tools they need to lock down their kids' devices however they see fit.
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 25 pts · 160d
They don't.
carpelbridgesyndrome@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 159d
That is kinda the point of the California one. The parents identify the device as belonging to a child when setting it up. There is no verification past asking for a date. The Illinois law also appears to be constructed in this way (I may have missed something though). The New York and Texas ones seem to require ID though the wording is vague. Utah and Louisiana outright require verification. Interestingly Louisiana's law explicitly considers children married under 18 not to be minors for the purposes of the law.
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 160d
If you want to protect kids, you wouldn't let a couple random adults dictate their life, body, education, and web access just because they happened to give birth to them
Ptsf@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 160d
It's sad that people who don't know what it's like will probably disagree with you, and to be honest I do not have a entirely better solution as it feels like it requires positive intent not specific stipulations (Russia and North Korea for example take it to the other side of the extreme). The width and depth of the human experience remains one of it's worst characteristics. ðŸ«
Ftumch@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 159d
And it's downright fiendish that a 100% imaginary thing like money decides who lives and who dies, but that's the world we live in.
It's not that you're wrong, it's just that there are very few paths to a better solution. Perhaps the local people's militia should take all children at birth and raise them? Until that time it'd be neat if parents had a simple, affordable way to stop their eight-year-old from seeing hardcore pornography.
lost_faith@lemmy.ca · 19 pts · 160d
I was there for the birth of the internet for everyone, sadly I'll be here for its death as well
_skj@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 160d
I don't understand how anyone thinks any part of this is going to work out.
This will never keep someone from viewing something if they really want to. All it will do is open up individuals to prosecution if they want to use any device anonymously.
PlasticExistence@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 160d
Unfortunately, you do, but because you don’t have an authority fetish (guessing), you’re thinking about the law and how the hell it could be implemented.
However
This isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.
There are laws in the works outlawing VPNs too.
Brummbaer@pawb.social · 5 pts · 159d
They are trying to contain free and open source operating systems of all kind and as a bonus they get to stop people from using PCs and other devices anonymously.
The future is going to be workhouses.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 160d
Papers, please, comrade.
throws_lemy@reddthat.com · 4 pts · 158d
There was a post on r/linux and OP said there were lobbyists for this bill, and Meta was one of them.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 159d
If they require authentication with some identity checking company, that's really bad
Auster@thebrainbin.org · 2 pts · 159d
It already did for a few years. The US wasn't the vanguard of it.
admin@scrapetacular.ydns.eu · 1 pts · 159d
Is this to keep gramps from doomscrolling