this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2026
358 points (98.4% liked)

Linux

63406 readers
453 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
358
An upcoming California law requires operating system providers to enforce basic mandatory age verification (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 3 days ago by ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml
198 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Apparently this will include Linux...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Einhornyordle@feddit.org 28 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I'll just copy my comment from a similar bill in colorado, I will leave the link to the colorado bill in, but here is the california bill as well if you want to read it yourself.

The title is very misleading. This is the actual bill that they are trying to pass. The link already includes a summary, so I will just give you an even simpler explanation and some practical examples why this is actually really neat.

First of all, this is not age verification. No IDs have to be submitted, no selfies or videos will be submitted to any age estimation AIs, so put your pitchforks away (for now, until they decide to expand the bill to include these measures as well, then it's time to burn it down). The name of the bill already tells you what it is: Age Attestation. Aka what every piece of software already does before it shows you explicit content.

With the bill in place, every "operating system provider" has to ask you for your age or date of birth during OS setup, which will then be made available to other software via an API. So instead of having to fill in your date of birth or checking "Are you 18+/21+?" boxes, software will use the new API to check instead, saving you the trouble of doing it manually every time for every application that is not made for all ages.

What makes it even better is that the OS does not have to provide your actual age or birth date, the bill has a minimum requirement of just disclosing age-bracket data. So it could work just like age ratings, which also rely on age groups rather than specific years. Also, the bill explicitly forbids asking for more than your age, sharing more than that via the new API and using the entered age data for anything else than the described purpose, like sending it to a server for tracking purposes.

And finally, as mentioned in the beginning, no IDs or anything else as it is with age verification necessary. You can still lie, just enter 1.1.2000 or whatever you want. Nothing changes, except that you will only have to do it once every time you reinstall/reset your OS or buy a new device.

[–] aurelar@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

What about distros that don't use automated account creation (or have optional automation), like Arch for example or Gentoo? The law isn't made to accommodate those people:

"Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store."

The odd thing is the wording that it "requires" an account holder to indicate age or DOB. As with anything *nix, there is always a workaround. There is no way to require anything of the user. There's also no definition for "accessible interface."

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 16 hours ago

This bill makes the operating system provider the responsible party. They have to implement this, and ensure compliance. Failure is a $2000 fine every time a child launches an application.

Under this law, Microsoft and Google are charged with implementing this feature and ensuring compliance. They are, obviously, "OS Providers". They control their respective operating systems.

With FOSS OSes, Ubuntu isn't the OS provider. Arch isn't the OS provider. Debian, Redhat, Gentoo aren't the OS Providers. The product each of these entities provide is an OS, but it is an OS that is under your full and total control. Not theirs. They cannot control what you do with the OS. They cannot ensure your implementation is compliant with state, local, national, or international law. Under this law they are not the responsible party.

Under this law. You are the "OS Provider".

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure. But this is step 1. Things never stop at step 1.

[–] Einhornyordle@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago

Of course, and I will fight the next steps with pleasure, but I welcome a qol feature anytime, even one enforced by law.

[–] Archr@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Thanks for putting this here. Kinda getting sick of people that only read the headlines or have only seen the Lunduke journal video that has so many clear inaccuracies.

The laws aren't perfect but they do have some nice protections for the users as you mention.

The only thing that I think is missing is that developers are restricted from collecting additional information but the OS providers are not, at least as far as I understand from reading the California law. At the very least, they still have the restriction on using the information in other places or sending it to third parties.

I posted this in another thread but I'll repeat it here. I think it is shortsighted that some linux distros are taking the kneejerk reaction of leaving/banning California residents. We need to band together and figure out a solution.