this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
120 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

2310 readers
195 users here now

Tech related news and discussion. Link to anything, it doesn't need to be a news article.

Let's keep the politics and business side of things to a minimum.

Rules

No memes

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

I’m going to be the contrarian here and say the bill is… good? It seems sensibly lax: The OS is required to ask for age, without external proof or requirement to share, and then provide apps who request it an interface to verify your answer.

I think taking the responsibility to verify age out of whichever dodgy data broker asks for it and unto the operating system itself, and ultimately the user if they lied, is a far better solution to the “problem” of age verification, which I don’t believe is going anywhere any time soon.

If you disagree please don’t be mean, I only just read the draft bill

[–] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 19 hours ago

Have you considered that age verification serves literally no purpose besides being a Trojan horse to kill anonymity on the Internet?

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What is the age for a family computer in the living room that is used by multiple people without logging in and out?

I don't have to read the law to know it is stupid and worse than doing nothing at all. They could have made it so that parental controls were standardized and apps had to respect that, but instead they chose to make it shitty for everyobe.

[–] admin@scrapetacular.ydns.eu -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Age of youngest user with access?

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Cool, guess I won't play games rated higher than their age after they go to bed.

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As the adult you can just make your own user account with your age and log out when you're done.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 1 points 18 hours ago

Ok and you can still do that without this law.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I am so sick of needing to make an account for every single thing so they can track me as an individual.

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 21 hours ago

Making your own user account on a shared PC is just common sense. That way you can customize it for yourself and your kids don't have to see your and your wife's private photos.

[–] admin@scrapetacular.ydns.eu 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I have Super Hentai Simulator 3 installed on an account with a strong password and short idle lock time, guests can still autologin with no password

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Just make more accounts" doesn't apply to the shared family computer in the living room. That just means forcing everyone to create multiple accounts when they don't need to.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 0 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I don't really get the discussion. At least per that bill nobody gets forced to create multiple accounts. What it does is mandate a input field on account creation. (And a bit more.) Whoever sets up that shared family computer can put in what they like. Create one account or five. Thats up to them...

[–] Manalith@midwest.social 6 points 1 day ago

My argument to that is the general slippery slope effect. Make incremental changes so devs are more willing to accept it. "Oh, you complied when we asked you to add a general age range question, so now why don't you make it more specific. Oh you've already made it more specific, why don't you just have them input their ID number so it can check it against a database. " and so on and so forth. That's not to say it will become that, but if you're willing to play the long game for your end goal, you can convince people they're okay with making those incremental changes.

[–] admin@scrapetacular.ydns.eu 6 points 1 day ago

If you read the draft bill, you're probably more informed than most people in the thread, plus the article writer, and some of the people who voted on the bill.

[–] G_M0N3Y_2503@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

Also makes sense for a parent setting up a device, they can enter the age once then not have to worry about a kid lying for every service they try and sign up for at a later date.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

I'd agree. The bill is the best attempt I've ever read by some politicians. It kinda tries to just mandate parental controls built into every operating system. Which is the way to go? I mean every other way enforces somthing, or there's third-party surveillance... Less so with this one.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 0 points 19 hours ago

No it's not. Services requiring age verification can ask for your age if that's necessary. You can then decide if you want that service to have that information from there. Baking it into the OS with an API where anyone can just ask for and receive that information is asinine.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the data brokers won't change. If they cared to they would already do this.

[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Very true, and now they won’t have the law on their side