this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
64 points (80.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38511 readers
1111 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for privacy. But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children's local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I'd easily chose the former.

I'd even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] x00z@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Because it will only be a simple birthdate until they decide to use those laws to go even further.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

While an international cabal of rich white men participate in a pedophile club run by america/israeli rich white other men, we need to ensure that the youth of today don't prematurely access "racy" pictures. Make it make sense.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

Yes.

My conspiracy theory is their end goal is a full database of everyone's children's photos and locations, to they can window shop which of our kids they want to grab and take to Epstein Island 2.0, next.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 17 hours ago

Because parents are responsible for stuff their off-spring does and the government should not be needed to do that.
At the very most, provide tools to help parents (e.g. on device filtering etc. or require companies to provide APIs to facilitate the same goal)

Other than that: Fuck off of my phone.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 18 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

because its designed to feed surveillance data to Palintir, which allows governments all over the west to monitor any dissident movements, or relatives of "dissidents" against right wing governments. dont know of any computer system requiring your ID/ or birthday, you can always fake a birthday.

right now the biggest threat to conservative governments is anyone "left" of them.

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 9 points 1 day ago

Wrong technical solution to a made up problem.

Governments have commissioned enough studies to know that education, training, and parental controls filtering content at the receiving end are more effective & less infringing of civil rights than laws imposing restrictions & penalties on website operators to comply with online age verification. Laws could instead allocate resources to promote the former in a major way, setup independent evaluations reporting the effectiveness of child protection technologies to the public, promote standards & the development of better standards in the industry. Laws of the latter kind simply aren't needed & also suffer technical defects.

The most fatal technical defect is they lack enforceability on websites outside their jurisdiction. They're limited to HTTP (or successor). They practically rule out dynamic content (chat, fora) for minors unless that content is dynamically prescreened. Parental control filters lack all these defects, and they don't adversely impact privacy, fundamental rights, and law enforcement.

Governments know better & choose worse, because it's not about promoting the public good, it's about imposing control.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

There is a difference between providing the capability, and requiring that capability.

Under this law, something as simple as sharing a Google Drive could make you an "app store" and potentially liable for penalties.

These laws are specifically designed to be broadly interpreted. We have no idea just how widely the nets will be cast, either tomorrow, or 10 years from now. It is prudent to assume the absolute worst case.

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

If they can. They will. Eventually.

Look at the data selling on car data.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children’s local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I’d easily chose the former.

That's your decision. The rest of us shouldn't be forced into it just because you're to lazy to watch what your kids are doing online. If a website thinks they need to my my age they can ask me and I'll decide if I want to provide it or not. I don't want my OS just handing it out to anyone who asks.

[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Come on, it's not about tending to a selected group of people, it's about mandating more surveillance. OP has done nothing to deserve this anger

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Read his fucking post. He said he wants this so he doesn't have to put in ID every time his kids want to use a new service online. What do you call that if not laziness?

[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You idiot or brain-damaged? Is OP the person proposing/lobbying the legislation? Read his fucking post yourself, dumbass. He said he'd easily choose the option and asks why it can be a bad thing to do

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't matter if they're the one proposing it, they're arguing in favor of it, that makes them part of the problem. People like that saying "well, this gross invasion of privacy isn't that bad for me" are why we have so much invasive bullshit going on in the first place.

[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Bullshit. But you are welcome to remain in your bubble, useful idiot that you are

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 9 hours ago

What fucking bubble? Who am I a useful idiot to? People that are against this shit fucking legislation? Good. I'll gladly oppose this garbage at every turn, and anyone who isn't against it can go fuck themselves.

[–] Bazoogle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Genuine question, what if the only information it hands out is that you are over 18? Would it be different if all it was able to say is you aren't a child?

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

It changes nothing. This is just to get their foot in the door and when it doesn't work they're going to escalate. I'm not interested in giving them a fucking inch. Big tech collects enough data on us as it is, we don't need to make it easier for them.

They already have a giant list of pedos they aren't dealing with. If they want me to trust their intentions are to protect children they need to start with that.

[–] PokerChips@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago

Because you're going down what they call a slippery slope.

This shouldn't even be a thing. This shouldn't even be a conversation.

We were doing just fine before the Epstein Republicans got their matching orders.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

You got the framing question wrong. You should have been asking if age limits should be implemented at all, and then whether the current proposals will work (which they won't), and then whether they cause side damage (which they do).

And then you must understand the key point: once you build these surveillance tools, they will be expanded. You say "only 18" but once the framework is in place, why not add in "credit check" or "gender" or "nationality".

And actually, we already know how the checks are implemented: they involve identifying people specifically. There is actually no way to do "only 18" checks; it is a physical impossibility. You always have to gather more data.

And finally, the basics of individual liberty as well as safe computing involve you choosing what software you want to run on your computer, and that you have control of your machine. For this type of age checking to work, it must take control away from you, the end user. And companies like Windows and OS X love it, because that would destroy the FOSS world.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 119 points 1 day ago (12 children)

You aren't setting up your childrens accounts. You're setting up your accounts to show that you're not a child. And suddenly, every single thing you use, from apps to websites, is gatekept behind an API that is controlled by the government. If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever. But that isn't all it will ever do. It will creep further and further, and the details you need to provide will increase, one shitty government term at a time. And then one day, they'll able able to decide that people in your country shouldn't be able to see safe sex information, or abortion information, and the framework to deny the whole country access is already there, and just one small tweak away from locking you out of information that is deemed inappropriate.

[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago (17 children)

If checking age on social media is all it ever does, then sure, whatever.

You're forgetting an important detail: you submitted an official ID to prove your age. Which means your face, address, and legal name are also on record. So every time you get age-verified, you're basically checking in with your full legal identity, leaving a breadcrumb path across the Internet of everything you do. That data can be used to track your online activities and build a database on who you are as a person, based on the things you access.

THIS is why age verification is a terrifying thing for computer access. It's a form of government tracking that should be illegal. Cops can't legally barge into your home anytime they want and go through your stuff. They can't take your computer and scan it for data collection. Not without a court order.

With age verification embedded within your OS, it won't matter if there's a court order or not. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you've just publicly broadcast all your data to the world, and anyone - cops or not - can tap into that data and build a profile on you. You don't even need to be browsing the Internet; if your OS is verifying your age, it could also be broadcasting that verification for every program you use locally on your computer. None of your data is safe; it's all tied to your legal identity and trackable.

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

You’re forgetting an important detail

I wasn't forgetting it. As it stands, at the OS level, you aren't supplying anything to prove your age. It's just a data field that software can read. And my point was that if that field, and social media was all it ever was, then, it's not great, but I can understand why the OP isn't too upset by it.

My point was more that it will never be just that.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] redwattlebird@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 day ago

Tools should be provided if you want to do that but shouldn't be standard. People should have freedom of choice on how to use their own property, in terms of computers, and how they manage/raise their children.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 13 points 1 day ago

Because I don't give a shit what your kids do on the Internet, and there are already plenty of tools for you to curate the experience for them.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago

So

  1. Unenforceable
  2. Inaccurate
  3. Over-reaching
  4. PII not protected

What's wrong with it then? By the numbers, it seems everything is wrong with it.

When you go order something from Amazon, you're using about 15-20 computers in a row; probably more. PROVE you have the right. Yes, the server farm you're using to make an order is included, and it's a lot of machines.

Who pays to make sure Ticketmaster server farm is 'used' by age-appropriate customers and the code to check that is installed and maintained? Why, you, of course. The order panel at the burger joint? You, eventually. Toll ticket at Airport Parking? You're gonna love this. Guess what's in your cable box? Guess how often you'll have to have your face scanned just to turn on the TV? TV too. Fancy thermostat? There's a computer Nesting in there. Scan that face, bucko; on the new unit you have to buy because, dude, that and your microwave just became e-waste.

The list is unending. The implementation is shit. The data leak has already been shown with .. discord, right?

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because they don't care about your age. They want to tie you to your ID, so everything you say and do online can be tracked and tied to you as a person.

Meanwhile the leader of one of their countries has raped women and teenagers and even a couple of children, but they don't do anything about it. But you can be jailed for decades for seeing a picture or video of it. But the actual act? They don't care about that. (I'm saying you can be jailed for simply seeing CSAM online, but if you're a billionaire actually doing the things, you won't be tried for the actual CSA being recorded.)

So as you can see, it's not your age, but your identity.

Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities. Historians know it was also anyone who disagreed with them. Anyone who spoke out against them. Anyone who wouldn't wear the armband. And they're afraid history will repeat. And they're right to be afraid.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities.

They started with the impoverished, queer, and disabled.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But between setting up the birthdate when creating my children's local account on their computers, and having to send a copy of their ID to every platform under the sun, I'd easily chose the former.

This is how they move the goalpost.

You currently can just create a local account - period. It's yours. No tracking. No personal info.

But now you're accepting that you're willing to give a third party information, even just a little.

The next argument is: "If giving your age is okay, why not your home address?"

This is what police do to fish information out of you.

I'd even agree to a simple protocol (HTTP X-Over-18 / X-Over-21 headers?) to that.

In a era where privacy conscious people don't even connect their TV to the internet... This is okay to you?

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Also this goalpost will move almost immediately. What if the parent doesn't understand why the OS is asking for a DOB and they type whatever? What if the parent doesn't log out and the kids use the adult account? What if the kid is really smart and bypasses the check (I think this could actually get bypassed easily)?

Rather than rolling back this rule they'll just go even further and say the OS must analyze every action and utilize every input (e.g. microphone, camera) to determine the age of the current user and that controls need to be at the hardware level and OSes need to get state certified, etc. Before long only Windows, Apple, Google, and maybe RedHat can comply. An entire community of Linux enthusiasts destroyed. And as some bills have stated, rather vaguely, this can apply to something as simple as a calculator!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Because it has little to do with protecting anyone and is another gross violation of privacy to serve corporate interests.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

Because I should not have to. Im fine with them selling specially child computers that are listed as under 18 you can buy for your kids but I don't want that crap on mine.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Show us your ID, then. Or even just your age. Now your children too.

Don't want to? That's why.

[–] GarboDog@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Imagine a hacker who’s also coincidently a pedo Now we all know hackers can easily coincidently access webcams Now we all know atleast a few kids with laptops or computers left on quite a lot, note with a convenient little flag telling everyone online they’re underaged Now we all know companies are corrupt and target children (look at any cartoon channel there’s so many toy ads!) Little Timmy wants the 99$ toy that everyone has because marketing is making him develop fomo!

It will start with age and that’s pretty bad but who’s to say it will stop there? This isn’t actually about children (while it will put them into some pretty big risks) it’s actually about more control of the population. More control to companies to advertise and push their products to you and to transfer wealth even faster than before. They want no anons they want your every thought. It’ll start with your age and in the end you’re social security.

[–] INeedANewUserName@piefed.social 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My calculator doesn't need to know how old anyone is. Nor does my refrigerator. I suppose a case could be made for a router if you are all onboard for age gating everything privacy and freedom be damned. An OS isn't just Mac or Windows... the CA law is just so so dumb as written that I have zero faith in anything from Silicon valley.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ardyvee@europe.pub 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The issue with "children" local accounts (assuming they ever remained 100% local anyway) is that for it to be effective, you would have to control who install the OS for it to be effective.

I have been managing my own OS install since I was a teen, so I could have just created an adult account for me. But, okay, you could say that you could just regularly check your child hasn't reinstalled the machine.

Well, see, they could just install a Virtual Machine. There is plenty of Virtual Machine software out there, and then we're back at whoever installs it being responsible for filling in that information. And Virtual Machines are very useful for a bunch of things: from running software not made for your hardware (see Android emulators, WSL), to being safer around dodgy software.

You could counter that by not letting them install things with your permissions... but there are portable versions of software that people make for a bunch of reasons which don't recall an installation. And I am not talking about hypotheticals: back when I was in school people would carry portable versions of games in USB sticks to copy around school machines so they could play video games during IT class.

Never mind that it means that whenever they want to install something, they will poke you about it, and now you're on the hook for reviewing that. Which you should already be doing because you care about what your child does and they don't have the years of experience to not break their OS.

But if you are doing that, why not use proper parental control software that let's you have much finer-grained control over what they can see or not online, along with other controls around how much time they can spend on the machine and a few nicer things?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ambitiousslab@feddit.uk 20 points 1 day ago (26 children)

Will you be allowed to lie about the age? If yes, then it's a pointless law. If no, then whoever is checking needs to have more control over your device than you do, DRM style. That's gives them an entry point through which they can put whatever they want without you being able to control it.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

On the one hand, it is a privacy nightmare.

On the other hand, those laws are so badly written, they will apply to things you would never consider an issue. E.g. a security camera, a router, a NAS. For each of them, the law applies, because they have an OS, they are attached to a network, and they have logins. Think about it, and it basically applies to any network enabled device.

[–] graycube@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

What is a computer? My microwave has a computer in it. My car. My printer. My smartwatch. My TV. My treadmill. My security cameras. Many many things have little embedded systems running linux. Some are Internet connected, some aren't. This feels terribly invasive for something that allegedly projects kids (doubtful). What if i don't have any kids in my household? Would this have stopped Trump and his friends? How about the government focus on real problems instead of requiring cameras be installed on my toaster and a credit card to be able to watch TV.

[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As others have said

It has nothing to do with age checking, protecting the children, or security. NOTHING.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

That’s one of the main things to me. The argument jumps directly to drivers license / DOB collection, but makes no conclusions about how it would protect children. It is OVERTLY, 100%, about feeding lists of targets to the pedophiles that run the biggest tech companies.

[–] U7826391786239@piefed.zip 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

the problem is that it's not going to stop there. kids will obviously still get porn, and fascists will say "seeeeee!!??! we need even more personal data to protect the kids!!! OS age verification isn't enough!!!"

steps in the wrong direction are exactly that, and exactly what this OS bullshit is. everyone having to pay the price for parents who can't be assed to raise their own kids

edit: i need to add--it's not actually about the kids. it never was. it's about collecting every 1 and every 0 that exists about you, for profit, but also for surveillance. every dissenting comment, post, photo, etc will be linked to a unique human being via dozens (or hundreds. thousands?) of data points. before you say "no way," remember the ridiculous percentage of 1/6 insurrectionists they rooted out, based on social media posts. and that was before AI blew up

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›