Technology

42437 readers

257 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

214

Age Verification Laws Are Multiplying Like a Virus, and Your Linux Computer Might be Next (itsfoss.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As of today, about half of all U.S. states have some form of age verification law around. Nine of those were passed in 2025 alone, covering everything from adult content sites to social media platforms to app stores.

Right now, California's Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) is all the rage right now, which targets not only websites and apps but also operating systems. Come January 1, 2027, every OS provider must collect a user's age at account setup and provide that data to app developers via a real-time API.

Colorado is also working on a near-identical bill, which we covered earlier.

The EFF's year-end review put it more bluntly: 2025 was "the year states chose surveillance over safety." The foundation's concern, which I concur with, is, where does this stop? Self-reported birthday today, government ID tomorrow? There appears to be no limit to these laws' overreach.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No. History taught me one thing only: if they say they want to protect kids, it's never about the kids. It's a slogan that helps to sell unpopular laws

[–] Redvenom@retrolemmy.com 7 points 1 day ago

Exactly, they have all this already established laws to protect kids, but everyone seem pretty chill about pedofiles

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

If you think blocking access to knowledge about sexuality, atheism, or drugs is actually protecting children and not about a controlling and unpopular law I don't know what to tell you. Because it's clearly not actually intended to protect children as much as it is to block inconvenient information to help indoctrinate children to be compliant and unquestioning.

[–] Mesa@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I think you're arguing with clouds. This person isn't saying these aren't effects or even objectives of the age verification effort, but it's a little silly to say, "No, this isn't about surveillance, it's about stifling LGBTQ and atheist progression." It's just so tunnel-visioned.

You could've even said it's about centralizing education as a whole and that would've been better encompassing. I agree, that's a bad thing. But it's absolutely not the full picture.

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago

They want to bind your id with the device you use and restricting queer kids from discovering that they're queer is the best thing you have in mind?