this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026

893 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

83893 readers

2875 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

893

Federal Bill Would Bring OS-Level Age Verification to the Entire U.S. (linuxiac.com)

submitted 3 days ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

302 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Havoc8154@mander.xyz 13 points 3 days ago (11 children)

Obviously everyone here hates this, but I'm gonna offer another perspective here and prepare for the down votes I guess.

There is a very good argument for OS level age 'tracking' as a means of creating a cohesive environment for software and websites to operate without having to implement individual age verification. The biggest actual issue here is how the OS determines what the user's age is. If this is implemented similar to what California has done, the OS would simply ask for the user's age at setup, and store that value, which can then be reported to programs and websites as needed. This would allow parents to setup a device for the child and not have to separately implement parental controls on every individual conceivable program, which are often easily circumvented. This would undermine any individual website's attempts to use age verification as an excuse to collect government ID data, and the security risks inherent to that.

There's no need to put any kind of validation onto this, it should simply be self-reported.

Now admittedly I don't trust our government to implement this in any kind of reasonable way so I definitely understand and respect the outrage, but I guess I'm just trying to find some positive aspect of how this might be implemented.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Wrong. There are things that belong at the application level and others that belong in user space. Fundamentally it doesn’t make sense for any sort of mandate.

TF should I have to put my age or any other personal information into my pihole or any other system I’m running.

[–] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Absolutely not, age data is biometric data. It can and will be used to fingerprint you.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Sure, make it an optional field that you can fill in with whatever. Don't make laws requiring it though.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'll appreciate that it's hard to be a devil's advocate on an argument and provide a nuanced take. But I will say the points made on the Ageless Linux website demonstrate why that's an issue, primarily around how you're teaching kids from their first time on the internet to lie. It really doesn't matter whether this happens through a drivers' license pic or a DOB selector.

[–] Havoc8154@mander.xyz 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Their argument is entirely based on the assumption that the child can change their DOB on the device at any time. That's trivially easy to avoid with a simple admin password requirement. If this was implemented in any competent way (granted, that is a lot to expect of legislators) the DOB would not be able to be changed once the device/user account is setup, or would require an administrator password which obviously shouldn't be given to the child.

But they turn around and say this is good and how things should work:

This app lets you chat with people on the internet. If you're a kid: ask an adult before chatting online.

Yeah, the kid that's willing to change their device settings is definitely going to go check in with Mom before they access something they know they shouldn't be on. That's just an unbelievably bad argument.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In the normal case where a moderate/low-tech mom buys a child an iPad, there is no step at which they're likely to recognize it has an "admin setup", or configure a password. They unwrap their christmas gift, and they're likely the one to figure it out.

I can easily picture this discussion in a household strangled for time.

"Mom! I tried to use that new tablet, but it wouldn't work!"
"Okay...sweetie, I'm running late for my shift, what's the problem?"
"It says I'm...that I must be 18 or older to akkept the terms-"
"Did you give it your age?"
"My birthday? Yeah. Does it give you like presents on your birthday?"
"Put in...put in 1980 for the year. It's fine. I gotta go. Love you."
"Really? Okay. ...Hey, it worked! I can play Fortnite now!-
slam
"Huh. What's HotChat...?"

Versus this: (What the website proposes)

"Mom? Is it okay if I chat with people on the internet?"
"Chat with who? You mean like your friends? Is Derek from school on there?"
"Well there's this thing that came installed on the tablet. It says I can chat with people on the internet. But I should ask first."
"Let me see. ...Sweetie, this doesn't look like something that's for you. We don't know if the people you're talking to are strangers, or even dangerous people." "Ohhh."
"I can...I gotta go, but I'll try to find you some apps that will let you chat with kids from school. Okay?"
"Aw. Okay. I can still play Fortnite though, right?"
"I...yeah. Fortnite is fine. Don't put anything on there without talking to me, you promise?"
"I promise."

The site even backs this up: That open communication about dangers, rather than hard, automatic restrictions tends to lead to healthier upbringing from kids. Setting up fully automated barriers just leads to creative workarounds, since ultimately, adults and businesses will demand convenience - and kids will find ways to get access to it too.

[–] Havoc8154@mander.xyz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So scenario one has a parent who is paying no attention to their child's questions, but in scenario 2 they're suddenly attentive and totally in tune with what their child is doing?

Look, you can't fix everything for everyone, but a simple explanation for first time setup of a device is not difficult, especially if it was implemented as a national movement (law or otherwise). Absentee parents are still gonna absentee, but it would be a tool that parents who give a shit could really benefit from.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Both scenarios I give involve the parent attempting to address the problem the child has. In the first one, the child had to ask for a way around an age blocker. The parent was never going to say no to the request because they're not going to make the case that the child "doesn't deserve to use devices". You could even theorize that the last part, discovering "HotChat", happens on their own time.

In the second one, the child was advised to consult an adult before using a chat program. The answer to their problem was a direct refusal - a NO from the parent, and an explanation as to why not to proceed - rather than any form of direct help. I'm even positing this second scenario starts from the child being left to their devices.

I'd need a much more detailed description of what a universal, government-driven, "simple explanation for first time setup" would be, for all operating systems on the market: Forcing all users to make admin accounts, store a password, and then create a child account; and trusting that people won't take simple paths for it, when most children are granted their own devices.

I'm very much in favor of giving parents tools for those things. But the way security works is, it will always be at war with convenience. As soon as people lean towards shortcuts that circumvent the intent of security (because not everyone's lives are based around these secure systems), the tight-gripped approach to security fails out. We want parents to choose to learn these tools on their own time, not simply have them presented as a roadblock to access.

[–] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

There is a very good argument for OS level age ‘tracking’ as a means of creating a cohesive environment for software and websites to operate without having to implement individual age verification. The biggest actual issue here is how the OS determines what the user’s age is.

I agree with you on this. I wouldn't mind if there was a mechanism on browsers which would send 'child/teen/adult' (or whatever they'd be called) data to websites in request headers since they already report a ton of stuff to the server anyways. It would be trivial for adult sites to check one header and limit access based on that. But the setting needs to be local only, so that parents could easily set restricted accounts for their kids. The point where user age must be validated via any 3rd party it's no longer about parental controls and the whole thing becomes a surveillance tool.

Also the limits should be agreed somehow on at least somewhat global basis so that it's only used for porn/gore/horror and other stuff like that. Things like sexual education, religious topics (likely both pro- and against-), medical stuff and things like that should be left out of the filtering. But as with practically every 'think of the children'-thing proposed for the internet it's got nothing to do with children nor used only for that.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Eggyhead@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Don’t want to compete with a potentially capable Linux? Pay the government to make it illegal!

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 55 points 3 days ago (9 children)

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is going to keep kids safe.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 48 points 3 days ago

That's because it is never about the children.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 61 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Everyone in this comment section, you're just gonna take this? Its been time, but if this is what motivates you to throw bricks at politicians then lets go

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] E_coli42@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Isn't this against the 10th amendment?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Jarvis2323@programming.dev 35 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Since all TV’s are smart TV’s with an OS this means age verification to watch TV? I think that’s a message that will resonate with the average consumer on what is wrong with this bill

[–] AndyMFK@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Some people fridges will need age verification

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 16 points 3 days ago

Finally, the year of linux is coming.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 days ago

Fuck everything's my about this.

[–] LostWanderer@fedia.io 37 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Ugh, this is so disgusting! They desperately want control over things they should never have! I've shared my opinion will all three of my representatives.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago

load more comments