It’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license.
Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.
So you are fine with the government mandating that authors include certain things in their creative works?
Why not require all books to begin with the sentence “America is the greatest nation in the world”? Or requiring endorsement of a particular political party or politician? Or requiring a “stolen land” acknowledgement?
Edit to respond to dead comment: MPAA and ESRB ratings are voluntary. Ever heard of “unrated” films?
Operating systems are not cigarettes or storefronts.
Maybe you’ve never written code, but done properly it’s certainly a creative act.
In the US we don’t allow laws that regulate the creative output of authors, filmmakers, painters, sculptors, or other such artisans. (That is, outside of “obscenity” laws that are constantly shrinking in scope as courts rightly reject most cases.)
Perhaps there is a difference when it comes to operating systems that provide built in “stores” with a monetary exchange function. This could be like building a moving sculpture that’s also a vending machine. The vending machine portion might be regulated under commercial laws depending on the level of craftsmanship and the mood of the court. A mass-produced sculptural vending machine is almost certainly subject to standard regulation even if it looks nice. A bespoke college art project may or may not be (although in any case the artist needs to pay their taxes). The law regarding creative projects is fuzzy and complicated.
"Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction"
That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.
Also not a lawyer, but from what I understand typically open source license restrictions are on redistribution - there's nothing preventing you from modifying something for personal use in more or less whatever way you want.
That indeed seems to rule out most open source licenses actually; one or another restriction, like including the license or not modify the license, will be in conflict. I’m pretty sure this sloppiness in phrasing is on purpose.
that's a very cynic take. it's the same as the tiring old argument that the GPL is not free, because true freedom should allow you to do whatever you want. but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy.
if you take the argument to the extreme then only public domain code would be exempt. clearly the lawmakers are aware of open source and free software licenses and would not make a stupid blunder to only allow public domain operating systems which nobody is using, if they even exist.
the license can't be modified anyways, that's a feature of copyright. a license may allow combination with code that has a different license, but the original code is still under the original license. so if i build a program that includes MIT or BSD code and GPL code, then the combined result is under the GPL, but the original MIT code is still MIT or BSD. both licenses require that the license notice may not be removed. i can rip out the GPL code and distribute the rest under MIT again. if it was possible to actually modify the license then i could not do that.
It may be cynical, but I see a clear pathway for a lawyer to argue that a specific piece of software is not exempt, because its license doesn't actually permit you to modify the source without restrictions, when there are specific restrictions referring to a file that is distributed as part of the software.
Will an LLM drop capitals and write all lowercase if you ask it to or does it require postprocessing?
The writing style reminds me of the people in college who would fake an English accent.
Addressing the actual comment, "it's anarchy not freedom" isn't really meaningful when talking about software modification instead of societal governance. Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?
what are you implying here? take a look at my posting history. i have been writing like this since before LLMs existed. also i am not an english native, but i lived in various english speaking countries with very diverse accents for many years as well as using english as the main language for more than two decades. that's bound to create a weird mixture of accents, especially for a non-native speaker who doesn't have the grounding of a native accent. but even in my native language i grew up in areas with very different accents or dialects, so that i don't even have a native accent in my own language.
Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?
because anarchy allows everyone to do hat they want, which means it does not offer protection for people who can't protect themselves.
the point of the GPL is to protect the user, to prevent the developer from locking the user in, it is not to give freedom to the developer. BSD/MIT licenses don't have that protection. no protection for the user equals anarchy to me.
Aha, your shift key does work! Now that you've found it we can work on using it when sentences start.
I find your anarchy analogy unconvincing. It seems like you're conflating the existence of permissive licences, with a lack of a legal obligation to use the GPL. If anarchy exists rather than user protection, it's in the ability to choose a non-GPL license altogether.
i just had the all lowercase discussion (i wasn't even the reason it started) so i am just going to refer you to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47889553
(that link is a top level comment responding to the article)
you're conflating the existence of permissive licenses, with a lack of a legal obligation to use the GPL
well, the interpretation of 9dev creates a legal preference for public domain software. so there is that. but that aside, i don't get your reading, how am i conflating anything. i am making an analogy. permissive licenses enable a state or behavior that is comparable to anarchy, in that there is no protection for anyone, whereas the GPL has a strong focus on user protection. if we want to stretch the analogy even further, the GPL could be compared to socialism. oh, and binary only distribution is capitalism. (ok. i'll stop now ;-)
what you are describing is something different entirely. the original developer of course has the freedom to set the rules for his software. what i am talking about in my analogy, is how that choice affects the environment in which their software gets used and distributed, which is either like anarchy or like socialism (or anything in between).
Meta has recently been successfully sued for harming children. They are naturally pursuing the easiest path to remove themselves from liability. If you don't trust an age signal that a user chooses on their own at during os setup that can legally only be used for age verification purposes, then you're certainly not going to trust whatever age verification method Facebook will use as an alternative.
sure they can, but they would have to justify that change, and we have a better argument to oppose such a change. better than had they never added an exemption in the first place.
I think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption.
(As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)
Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do.
If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.
Parents want another option between their child being shown harmful content on social media and signing up their child up to be a pariah because they're not allowed to use social media altogether.
What I've suggested is the alternative. What we're going to get is kids banned from social media altogether. And I'm not 100% against that because my kids didn't really use it because we introduced it gently while talking about it a lot with them.
But when I say not 100% against, maybe 75% against it. The idea of age checking operating systems and browsers I'm very much against. Ban devices in schools: fine, it's a place of learning and there are always specific rules in shared environments.
You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position.
Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.
Now that we've gotten the ad homs out of our system, provide a solution.
I'd like the nice thing of a workable solution. The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - the one you obviously don't want. It's crazy to believe that despite detesting age verification, none of that vitriol can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea.
Frankly outside of what I wrote below (which I think mere existence is still threat factor by creation of authoritarian OS for computers) you will not get 'solution' from me (unless by that you mean age rating and voluntary enforcement by computer) because you are creating the problem - You don't want to do work but want to exert control, which is contradictory and entitled position. You are not entitled to get anything, and with amount of people with kids dwindling it is beyond me why do you think 'it is for children' will even work to begin with as popular talking point. The parental controls are the best solution, assumption otherwise makes you extremist from another’s eye.
Simply put the idea of computer for you is "a tool" for another it is extension of memory and mouth - you don't get control any of that, ever. There is no 'vitriol' - there is only rightful anger that you crossed of boundary of acceptable speech by another person. The most basic thing that you must get right before you start to advocate for change, is "what is my Overton window - and what is the other person's one", because thinking of workable solution works only when people windows cross to begin with - and they do not have to because sometimes you do not have the ability to have both freedom and control. And you should clearly know that for some freedom is more important than control.
The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - yes I agree, the first solution is by definition the status quo before the 'now' solution.
There are times that you have to accept: there is no middle ground, other than the ground you stand upon.
"Provide a solution." "can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea." Did you entertain the thought that there is no better 'workable' idea than status quo?
You want to control the user - kid, and not control the user i.e adult, you also want parent to not bother. That is impossible. Either parent have to do active part, other (because by definition kid already is - since the age is already available to whatever malware will be running on device) people will be harmed by surveillance or we keep status quo. Classical choice triangle.
The only "rational" (still for me this seems like possible trojan horse) way would be to actively enforce existence of "for-child OS" on company controlled OSes, and use something like Secure Boot if parent SO DESIRES (with caveat 5 ).
0. (short version) Effectively this would mean buy separate device for kids or learn how to do it. And it would fundamentally be bound to device not user,
1. by enforcing main key to be Owner's (Parent) and signing the OS developer key with the main key for purpose of OS boot (start) - so that OS 'provider' can sign kid-friendly OS version with that developer key. (you probably could ease that with vendor key - but still requires possibility of changing the key which leads to
2. then lock the UEFI by password... that still require knowledge about the tech - unless you get password in device box [then again parents have to exercise some parenting and not give device with the box], and don't start about phones - they would require UEFI and Secure Boot available for user first - not just manufacturer.
3. and you would HAVE TO (this bit is especially trojan otherwise) enforce every OS manufacturer and vendor that provide ones for kids to always provide the non-kid version (and support it!) - so that it would not create de facto surveillance OS/PC. Let me guess this is impossible for you Americans.
4. Then app developers can sign apps for kids with the OS developer key that is FOR the kid variant - otherwise will not run (in that scenario 'kid-OS' only).
5. you would have to limit it for kids devices ONLY so you would have to reverse "ID check in bar" to confirm the existence of kid instead of adult (during buying the OS/device) - otherwise again trojan horse (because of commonality of solutions).
If you find this version 'workable' please have it - but for me it seems contradictory to desire of not bothering parents. *From my perspective this is effectively parental controls on steroids*. This is exceptionally similar to attestation except it has opt out for people who actively kept the password, no IDs, and no 'sending age over wire'. This will help exactly zero to stop spread of some files if parents give a kid in class for-adult phone/pc unless you enforce signing every file by kid-OS and not opening unsigned files - congratulations your kid would be using OS approved by north Korea! - do you start to see the issue with 'workable' ideas? They inevitably flow to surveillance and autocratic tech.
This is anyway probably faulty in something I did not thought about.
You're reaching for legally mandated solutions. Why can't this be one?
"Choose to be a good parent, vs legally mandated spyware". Why not "legality mandated be a good parent"? This would solve a lot of other problems too. Like, all those people who hand wring "oh we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! It's not working! Whatever could work in aggregate?!" people who don't actually parent can be trained to parent, and if they refuse they face consequences.
> If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway
School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.
How much supporters agree is void point unless you are making Wunschkonzert - wish-concert, it is how much the decliners and reality disagree that is the most serious problem. You either operate on "We don't like, we disagree, we disagree and will not accept, we disagree so much that we will vote on People more volatile then current U.S one to make the point" - If you start to operate in third and worse the fourth then no agreement will solve this issue. And you started from proposition that is so outright insane that you may as well count many in third view.
The workable alternative is no bill. These age surveillance bills are designed specifically to indemnify service providers (and, specifically, Facebook) when they inevitably try to harm your child, on the basis of "well the phone OS said he's over 18 so we can do whatever we want to him".
Imagine: Websites over a certain number of users must publish content-suitability tags. Preinstalled operating systems over a certain marketshare must include software that can filter on said content-suitability tags, which can be enabled during the initial setup process. When parental controls are enabled, websites without tags "fail closed" and don't display. The open web continues to exist, and the long tails of sites, operating systems, and devices stay completely unaffected.
The bill under discussion is being pushed by Facebook purely to absolve themselves of liability. The information flow is completely backwards. Its design actually removes control from parents (websites are responsible for making the decision, so whether a given site is suitable for your kid is made by corporate attorneys), and puts assumed liability on parents (eg "you're negligent for letting your kid access a browser that doesn't broadcast their age").
(I'm a parent but thankfully not yet at the stage where I have to navigate this issue)
It’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license.
Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.
> not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled
How is this different from any disclosure, signage or notice requirement?
So you are fine with the government mandating that authors include certain things in their creative works?
Why not require all books to begin with the sentence “America is the greatest nation in the world”? Or requiring endorsement of a particular political party or politician? Or requiring a “stolen land” acknowledgement?
Edit to respond to dead comment: MPAA and ESRB ratings are voluntary. Ever heard of “unrated” films?
[dead]
> So you are fine with the government mandating that authors include certain things in their creative works?
No. This is a non sequitur.
> MPAA and ESRB ratings are voluntary
Okay? Cigarette-package notices are not. All manner of required disclosure packets are not.
Operating systems are not cigarettes or storefronts.
Maybe you’ve never written code, but done properly it’s certainly a creative act.
In the US we don’t allow laws that regulate the creative output of authors, filmmakers, painters, sculptors, or other such artisans. (That is, outside of “obscenity” laws that are constantly shrinking in scope as courts rightly reject most cases.)
Perhaps there is a difference when it comes to operating systems that provide built in “stores” with a monetary exchange function. This could be like building a moving sculpture that’s also a vending machine. The vending machine portion might be regulated under commercial laws depending on the level of craftsmanship and the mood of the court. A mass-produced sculptural vending machine is almost certainly subject to standard regulation even if it looks nice. A bespoke college art project may or may not be (although in any case the artist needs to pay their taxes). The law regarding creative projects is fuzzy and complicated.
compelled speech, freedom of speech, association, etc all died with Goldwater. It's over bubba, the government is just thinking up new ways to use it.
"Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction"
That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.
Also not a lawyer, but from what I understand typically open source license restrictions are on redistribution - there's nothing preventing you from modifying something for personal use in more or less whatever way you want.
I should not have paraphrased... it says "TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT RESTRICTION".
The way I interpret that is that redistributing cannot be restricted either, which wouldn't work for say, the GPL, as far as I understand it.
That indeed seems to rule out most open source licenses actually; one or another restriction, like including the license or not modify the license, will be in conflict. I’m pretty sure this sloppiness in phrasing is on purpose.
that's a very cynic take. it's the same as the tiring old argument that the GPL is not free, because true freedom should allow you to do whatever you want. but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy.
if you take the argument to the extreme then only public domain code would be exempt. clearly the lawmakers are aware of open source and free software licenses and would not make a stupid blunder to only allow public domain operating systems which nobody is using, if they even exist.
the license can't be modified anyways, that's a feature of copyright. a license may allow combination with code that has a different license, but the original code is still under the original license. so if i build a program that includes MIT or BSD code and GPL code, then the combined result is under the GPL, but the original MIT code is still MIT or BSD. both licenses require that the license notice may not be removed. i can rip out the GPL code and distribute the rest under MIT again. if it was possible to actually modify the license then i could not do that.
It may be cynical, but I see a clear pathway for a lawyer to argue that a specific piece of software is not exempt, because its license doesn't actually permit you to modify the source without restrictions, when there are specific restrictions referring to a file that is distributed as part of the software.
> but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy
Will an LLM drop capitals and write all lowercase if you ask it to or does it require postprocessing?
The writing style reminds me of the people in college who would fake an English accent.
Addressing the actual comment, "it's anarchy not freedom" isn't really meaningful when talking about software modification instead of societal governance. Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?
what are you implying here? take a look at my posting history. i have been writing like this since before LLMs existed. also i am not an english native, but i lived in various english speaking countries with very diverse accents for many years as well as using english as the main language for more than two decades. that's bound to create a weird mixture of accents, especially for a non-native speaker who doesn't have the grounding of a native accent. but even in my native language i grew up in areas with very different accents or dialects, so that i don't even have a native accent in my own language.
Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?
because anarchy allows everyone to do hat they want, which means it does not offer protection for people who can't protect themselves.
the point of the GPL is to protect the user, to prevent the developer from locking the user in, it is not to give freedom to the developer. BSD/MIT licenses don't have that protection. no protection for the user equals anarchy to me.
> LLM
> GPL
> BSD/MIT
Aha, your shift key does work! Now that you've found it we can work on using it when sentences start.
I find your anarchy analogy unconvincing. It seems like you're conflating the existence of permissive licences, with a lack of a legal obligation to use the GPL. If anarchy exists rather than user protection, it's in the ability to choose a non-GPL license altogether.
i just had the all lowercase discussion (i wasn't even the reason it started) so i am just going to refer you to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47889553 (that link is a top level comment responding to the article)
you're conflating the existence of permissive licenses, with a lack of a legal obligation to use the GPL
well, the interpretation of 9dev creates a legal preference for public domain software. so there is that. but that aside, i don't get your reading, how am i conflating anything. i am making an analogy. permissive licenses enable a state or behavior that is comparable to anarchy, in that there is no protection for anyone, whereas the GPL has a strong focus on user protection. if we want to stretch the analogy even further, the GPL could be compared to socialism. oh, and binary only distribution is capitalism. (ok. i'll stop now ;-)
what you are describing is something different entirely. the original developer of course has the freedom to set the rules for his software. what i am talking about in my analogy, is how that choice affects the environment in which their software gets used and distributed, which is either like anarchy or like socialism (or anything in between).
Open, closed, doesn't matter. Just say no.
Meta is behind this.
Meta has recently been successfully sued for harming children. They are naturally pursuing the easiest path to remove themselves from liability. If you don't trust an age signal that a user chooses on their own at during os setup that can legally only be used for age verification purposes, then you're certainly not going to trust whatever age verification method Facebook will use as an alternative.
[citation requested]
this was posted last month
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...
and discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47362528
Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought the above comment was saying Meta was behind the open source exemption
It is not trustworthy full stop. A simple amendment passed the next year can change it.
sure they can, but they would have to justify that change, and we have a better argument to oppose such a change. better than had they never added an exemption in the first place.
I reject the idea outright because I have no desire to negotiate with crocodiles over my being eaten last :-)
I think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption.
(As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)
This is the "lesser evil" trick politicians use to silence the opposition.
Zuck is a fake geek
Propose a workable alternative for parents and then we'll talk.
Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do.
If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.
Parents want another option between their child being shown harmful content on social media and signing up their child up to be a pariah because they're not allowed to use social media altogether.
What I've suggested is the alternative. What we're going to get is kids banned from social media altogether. And I'm not 100% against that because my kids didn't really use it because we introduced it gently while talking about it a lot with them.
But when I say not 100% against, maybe 75% against it. The idea of age checking operating systems and browsers I'm very much against. Ban devices in schools: fine, it's a place of learning and there are always specific rules in shared environments.
That's the option we have now and it's not working. Please suggest and alternative that works.
Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.
I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position.
Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.
My god. People like you are the reason we can’t have nice things.
Now that we've gotten the ad homs out of our system, provide a solution.
I'd like the nice thing of a workable solution. The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - the one you obviously don't want. It's crazy to believe that despite detesting age verification, none of that vitriol can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea.
Frankly outside of what I wrote below (which I think mere existence is still threat factor by creation of authoritarian OS for computers) you will not get 'solution' from me (unless by that you mean age rating and voluntary enforcement by computer) because you are creating the problem - You don't want to do work but want to exert control, which is contradictory and entitled position. You are not entitled to get anything, and with amount of people with kids dwindling it is beyond me why do you think 'it is for children' will even work to begin with as popular talking point. The parental controls are the best solution, assumption otherwise makes you extremist from another’s eye. Simply put the idea of computer for you is "a tool" for another it is extension of memory and mouth - you don't get control any of that, ever. There is no 'vitriol' - there is only rightful anger that you crossed of boundary of acceptable speech by another person. The most basic thing that you must get right before you start to advocate for change, is "what is my Overton window - and what is the other person's one", because thinking of workable solution works only when people windows cross to begin with - and they do not have to because sometimes you do not have the ability to have both freedom and control. And you should clearly know that for some freedom is more important than control.
The failure to do so means you get the first proposed solution - yes I agree, the first solution is by definition the status quo before the 'now' solution.
There are times that you have to accept: there is no middle ground, other than the ground you stand upon.
"Provide a solution." "can be redirected in to coming up with a workable better idea." Did you entertain the thought that there is no better 'workable' idea than status quo?
You want to control the user - kid, and not control the user i.e adult, you also want parent to not bother. That is impossible. Either parent have to do active part, other (because by definition kid already is - since the age is already available to whatever malware will be running on device) people will be harmed by surveillance or we keep status quo. Classical choice triangle.
The only "rational" (still for me this seems like possible trojan horse) way would be to actively enforce existence of "for-child OS" on company controlled OSes, and use something like Secure Boot if parent SO DESIRES (with caveat 5 ). 0. (short version) Effectively this would mean buy separate device for kids or learn how to do it. And it would fundamentally be bound to device not user, 1. by enforcing main key to be Owner's (Parent) and signing the OS developer key with the main key for purpose of OS boot (start) - so that OS 'provider' can sign kid-friendly OS version with that developer key. (you probably could ease that with vendor key - but still requires possibility of changing the key which leads to 2. then lock the UEFI by password... that still require knowledge about the tech - unless you get password in device box [then again parents have to exercise some parenting and not give device with the box], and don't start about phones - they would require UEFI and Secure Boot available for user first - not just manufacturer. 3. and you would HAVE TO (this bit is especially trojan otherwise) enforce every OS manufacturer and vendor that provide ones for kids to always provide the non-kid version (and support it!) - so that it would not create de facto surveillance OS/PC. Let me guess this is impossible for you Americans. 4. Then app developers can sign apps for kids with the OS developer key that is FOR the kid variant - otherwise will not run (in that scenario 'kid-OS' only). 5. you would have to limit it for kids devices ONLY so you would have to reverse "ID check in bar" to confirm the existence of kid instead of adult (during buying the OS/device) - otherwise again trojan horse (because of commonality of solutions).
If you find this version 'workable' please have it - but for me it seems contradictory to desire of not bothering parents. *From my perspective this is effectively parental controls on steroids*. This is exceptionally similar to attestation except it has opt out for people who actively kept the password, no IDs, and no 'sending age over wire'. This will help exactly zero to stop spread of some files if parents give a kid in class for-adult phone/pc unless you enforce signing every file by kid-OS and not opening unsigned files - congratulations your kid would be using OS approved by north Korea! - do you start to see the issue with 'workable' ideas? They inevitably flow to surveillance and autocratic tech.
This is anyway probably faulty in something I did not thought about.
This is rich. Really setting the terms here huh? So tough and scary on the internet.
It's really adorable.
Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
For people without desire to have kids it for sure it infringe less.
Seriously though, I think it is good illustration point of "this is unacceptable speech" i.e outside of Overton window.
Why should anyone have the right to hold such power over another human being?
[dead]
I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
How effective do you find that strategy to be?
1%
make Facebook do their damn job
they could, they just dont want to spend the money or risk liability
No, you misunderstand.
You're reaching for legally mandated solutions. Why can't this be one?
"Choose to be a good parent, vs legally mandated spyware". Why not "legality mandated be a good parent"? This would solve a lot of other problems too. Like, all those people who hand wring "oh we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! It's not working! Whatever could work in aggregate?!" people who don't actually parent can be trained to parent, and if they refuse they face consequences.
> If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway
School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.
How much supporters agree is void point unless you are making Wunschkonzert - wish-concert, it is how much the decliners and reality disagree that is the most serious problem. You either operate on "We don't like, we disagree, we disagree and will not accept, we disagree so much that we will vote on People more volatile then current U.S one to make the point" - If you start to operate in third and worse the fourth then no agreement will solve this issue. And you started from proposition that is so outright insane that you may as well count many in third view.
The workable alternative is no bill. These age surveillance bills are designed specifically to indemnify service providers (and, specifically, Facebook) when they inevitably try to harm your child, on the basis of "well the phone OS said he's over 18 so we can do whatever we want to him".
Imagine: Websites over a certain number of users must publish content-suitability tags. Preinstalled operating systems over a certain marketshare must include software that can filter on said content-suitability tags, which can be enabled during the initial setup process. When parental controls are enabled, websites without tags "fail closed" and don't display. The open web continues to exist, and the long tails of sites, operating systems, and devices stay completely unaffected.
The bill under discussion is being pushed by Facebook purely to absolve themselves of liability. The information flow is completely backwards. Its design actually removes control from parents (websites are responsible for making the decision, so whether a given site is suitable for your kid is made by corporate attorneys), and puts assumed liability on parents (eg "you're negligent for letting your kid access a browser that doesn't broadcast their age").
(I'm a parent but thankfully not yet at the stage where I have to navigate this issue)
solution to what exactly?
[dead]