this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
198 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

81653 readers
3955 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Bill 26-051 reflects that pattern. The bill does not directly regulate individual websites that publish adult or otherwise restricted content. Instead, it shifts responsibility to operating system providers and app distribution infrastructure.

Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established. The provider would then generate an age bracket signal and make that signal available to developers through an application programming interface when an app is downloaded or accessed through a covered application store.

App developers, in turn, would be required to request and use that age bracket signal.

Rather than mandating that every website perform its own age verification check, the bill attempts to embed age attestation within the operating system account layer and have that classification flow through app store ecosystems.

The measure represents the latest iteration in a series of Colorado efforts that have struggled to balance child safety, privacy, feasibility and constitutional limits.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GutterRat42@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Google already allows you to save your ID in Google Wallet and share specific details via NFC. Why can't I just use it to provide my year of birth?

[–] kamikazerusher@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago

Seriously. There are better ways to ensure privacy with identity verification.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 7 points 2 hours ago

Colorodo democrats have always been lousy. Here they are following texas and montana and tennessee, locking down the internet with dishonest arguments. No one in reality thinks this is about protecting kids, and it's not the state's place to do so, it's the parents, it's a violation of the 1st amendment to make adults expose their identities to people recording everything they do online and using it against them, and selling it to the government.

We need to repeal these bills, and we need a popular open source of model legislation to counter-act ALEC, that writes these bills and state lawmakers just fill in the blanks, after the united corporations give them a plausible excuse to and pay them off

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

These people are idiots

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

What would be the point of that? If the check was done locally it would be trivial to spoof.

Technically, this can't work. It's a bad idea.

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

At this point, it's probably cheaper and more effective to have proper sex education in schools...

[–] Beep@lemmus.org 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

At which age? And how?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 8 points 5 hours ago

Fucking idiots don't know how operating systems work or what they're for.

[–] Traister101@lemmy.today 10 points 9 hours ago

If I could trust that the people in government know how computers work I'd be down but well I can't

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 35 points 13 hours ago

I fully expect this to become a move to hamper linux, or any non-windows desktop usage, because "we can't trust a user who has full access to their OS" or some other bullshit.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 28 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Only for privacy and anonymity, Google and Microsoft will do fabulously however. Who donates to him I wonder.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Hey Colorado. GFY and get your damn politicians under control.

[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago

First I've heard of it, dude. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 41 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

AFAIK, only adults can sign up for internet access, so a minor watching porn on the internet is the same as said minor watching their parents’ adult DVDs or drinking alcohol their parents purchased. It’s already illegal for adults to give minors access to these things, so what’s next? Alcohol bottles that only open and DVDs / Bluerays that only play if you can provide an ID and prove your age every time?

[–] cheesorist@lemmy.world 14 points 5 hours ago

its not about limiting children's access to porn and other stuff, it never was.

[–] IratePirate@feddit.org 4 points 11 hours ago

DON'T give them ideas!

[–] mech@feddit.org 63 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established.

It's so fucking obvious the people who wrote this have no idea other operating systems than iOS, Windows and Android exist.

[–] ISOmorph@feddit.org 5 points 5 hours ago

What are you on about? If they get 95% of the population with this it's still a huge win for them.

[–] parzival@lemmy.org 27 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Account is created? Who said were making accounts for our operating systems

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 118 points 19 hours ago (10 children)

This is getting ridiculous.

Linux is the only reasonable choice anymore.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 66 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (6 children)

Linux won't be legal in Colorado if they pass this. You'll need an account with some age-policing, ID-reporting corporation to be able to use a computing device.

How do they imagine they could enforce this though? Presumably quite selectively, based on the user's political leanings.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

The courts should strike it down, I don't have faith they will side with the constitution, but it's clearly unconstititional and beyond the authority of the state as well, in the realm of interstate commerce which is explicitly given to the feds, whom can't be trusted either obviously.

But the 1st amendment is clearly invalidating this, forcing people to identify themselves to groups that will record everything they say or do and sell it to everyone, including the government, that will chill speech, and groups will punish people for their speech.

Too bad scotus is all in on punishing people for speech though.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 13 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Are they going to check people's PCs at the state borders as they move in then?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

Presumably quite selectively, based on the user’s political leanings.

Not defend Democrats too much here, but they clearly have far less of a habit of doling out enforcement based on political leanings than the Republicans, even if they do enforce things quite selectively when it comes to actual leftists while letting Nazis run around with seeming impunity.

Colorado has been a solidly Blue state since the end of the W. Bush years, and even then, it was pretty split down the middle with just over half of the votes going to Bush. It's honestly been mostly-Blue-dominated since 1992. (Lauren Boebert notwithstanding)

Further, the two main sponsors of the bill are both Democrats. This genuinely seems to me to be another example of "heart in the right place but don't know what the fuck they're actually doing" which seems common for the tech illiterate and often for Democrats in general.

Once again, not saying Democrats aren't guilty of selective enforcement, just pointing out that they're far less likely to do so (or at least less likely to do so against conservatives, for genuine leftists it seems up for debate).

Now, that also means nothing in context to how other politicians can use this kind of legislation negatively, even if the writers and sponsors truly have the best of intentions. Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well, and way back then folks like me were saying "this seems pretty dangerous, especially if we ever have a despot take control of the country and the levers for these tools" which clearly has come to pass.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 50 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

"OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER" MEANS A PERSON THAT DEVELOPS, LICENSES, OR CONTROLS THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ON A DEVICE.

great, for my devices then, that would be me

[–] black_flag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 17 hours ago

Age verification is identity verification.

[–] mrnngglry@sh.itjust.works 11 points 14 hours ago

Why can’t we just have better parental controls? I’m a parent and I do want to protect my kids but I will not upload a photo or anything else.

For fuck's sake.

What are parental controls?

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 20 points 17 hours ago

Goodbye tech ownership in Colorado if this passes. We're moving one step closer to the government issuing out thin clients that only they control.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 22 points 19 hours ago (11 children)

Just think: Without legislation like this, kids will be able to see people having sex! Thus, ending their lives. Not so different from staring into the eyes of Medusa!

The amount of children exposed to sex that have died—or suffered worse consequences like early onset conservatism—may have been zero so far but the dangers are clear! We must skip right over parental involvement in child rearing and go straight to the source of the problem: Computers.

Computers have been giving everyone access to too much information for too long! We must restrict it! The first step is to get an implementation that actually works to censor information—to save the children (wink wink)—then later, we will have the tools necessary to censor whatever we want!

When glorious dictator decides that information about trans-genic mice must be erased from the Internet, we shall have the power to do so!

[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 17 points 19 hours ago

We must protect little Billy from seeing tits, so he can keep laser focus on preparing for the next school shooting.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

Ok but isn’t that just this?

Declared Age Range / AgeRangeService - iOS

Use Play Age Signals API - Android

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 19 points 19 hours ago (11 children)

This goes in a better direction than web sites doing it themselves, I think. The government put out an open source tool that runs locally and the browser just gets a yay/nay return code from it.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 13 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Not the OS.

The OS "provider"

Linus Torvalds ain't gonna check my ID. And i don't want him to, either.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 26 points 17 hours ago

Everyone was born at 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970

load more comments
view more: next ›