Get ready for every action you do on your device to be associated with your identity. Anonymity is removed on the device level.
And I’m sure this will also lead to jail time for people who run illegal operating systems, like Linux.
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)
News
36512 readers
1868 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's the entire point. It's almost completely unenforceable but when they arrest people it'll be an additional charge. Double tap legislation.
When things like this pass it leads to other things like OS level identification verification. Then quietly they make it mandatory and suddenly we’re living in some fictional dystopia. (Which is clearly the direction humanity is headed in, and that sucks)
No need for fingerprinting if you hand every website you visit your government ID.
This has nothing to do with "protecting children". The goal of the Broligarchs is to end general purpose computers that individuals own and have personal control of. They want total control and ownership of everything and to divide the market up amongst themselves. All computing devices must be locked down so they can rent them out to us for a never-ending income of recurring payments of money, information, ad revenue, and dissemination of propaganda to control future elections and keep lawmakers in their pockets and laws implementing their plans.
This is my theory as well and it keeps me up at night. Seriously. The smartphonification of personal computing is my personal hell, and I KNOW I'm not alone.
In a way, because I'm not a silly person who puts my entire identity online, the Internet allows me to connect to the world whilst remaining safely disconnected from the "show me your ID" seriousness of the "real"/meatspace world.
My personal computer is ideally where I can do what I want, speak with whom I want, and be whom I want, and not be bothered or spied on.
The computing world used to be a little crazy, but it's where we went to get away from the slobbering normies and politicians before Eternal September and Facebook started the slide toward online-mandatory existence for everyone.
Now everything is about "law and order" and "we the government need to contract with private corporations to kEeP yOuR kIdS sAfE." (They'll just hoover up and subsequently lose or sell all of our data to rival nation states or criminal syndicates.)
We need a massive education campaign and pushback against this madness. Know what's a bigger danger to our kids than the Internet apparently? Lawmakers.
I don't see anything in here about verification.
January 1, 2028, an operating system provider shall: (1) provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both
I can 'indicate' whatever the fuck I want with no consequences. That's not the same as age/id verification.
You sure can, and then:
Provides that a violation of the Act constitutes an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
The law only applies to OS providers. I, as a user, can legally input 1675 as my birth date.
So you already know how this will be implemented by the OS, and how your going to bypass it. Sounds like you're good to go then.
Quick question though, you got an ID with a barcode on the back?
I'm reading the full text of the bill, and midribbon_Action is correct. It says nothing about legally validating a user's age. It just says that an OS must offer a way to input a DOB or age during account creation, and a way to provide info to a requesting service provider about whether the current user is a minor or not based on the provided information. Nowhere does it say that the OS provider must validate the information.
This is basically the same as a web site asking you if you're 18 or older before letting you in, except the OS will be answering for you. Ostensibly so that a parent can set up their child's account on the device with their actual age. But realistically this doesn't do anything you couldn't do with parental controls that are already available in every modern OS.
But realistically this doesn’t do anything you couldn’t do with parental controls that are already available in every modern OS.
Big Agree.
I give no fucks about the technicalities. These bills should not exist. Pretending that it will be easy to bypass, or that "Its not technically validation" is a garbage take.
Nobody is pretending, we just know how to read. There are real threats to privacy, there are real age verification bills going around everywhere. This isn't one of them. Technical details matter, and this proposal preserves children's privacy while giving parents more control of their devices.
And to continue that point I'd be more than happy if this is the kind of law states pass then move on. They can say they did something about it and work on more important issues. Not all of these laws are the same and we're not helping anything pretending they are.
There's no bypassing required, there's literally no verification required. The post title is incorrect.
In the hypothetical world where an operating system, independent of any legal requirements, decides to require age/id verification, I will simply not use that particular operating system.
MSG FROM ISP Without IDCHIP™ your device is not permitted.
Look at you defending this. Wow. MAGAt.
The correct word is attestation, not verification. It's incredibly important distinction.
...did you reply to the wrong message? Lol
Nope. They are saying they don’t have a problem with the OS asking because they can just lie. Except later when they amend the law and make it illegal. It’s a slippery slope that ends in identity verification.
The problem everyone has is the verification portion. Thing it to a real person. The rest doesn't really matter. This is no different from you entering your age on a porn site, which has been a requirement in the US for decades.
Your argument is like being mad that you can't smoke anymore because your doctor told you not to. No one is forcing to to actually do it or to tell the truth to your doctor.
Sure there is. When the OS has the ability to supply providers with your AGE this is just additional tracking. They won’t ever stop at age.
If a website needs to know your age……. It can ask you.
You sound like the kind of person who says, “if you don’t have anything to hide you shouldn’t worry about the government invading your privacy”
You’re insane. This is nothing like smoking. wtf? lol. Missing a few card in your deck.
You seem to just keep ignoring the part where you don't have to enter real information. I'm not sure if you're just dumb or a troll. I'm hoping the latter.
And yea, I agree about the website just asking. It changes nothing so why are we bothering with it at all.
If you want a real answer, it is for the situation where the owner of a device would like to respond on a non-privileged user's behalf. A kid being asked 'hey, you have to be 18 to see inside, pinky promise? ;)' by a website is not secure. And there are plenty of sketchy, privacy-invasive third party solutions to lock down devices, but a system-level universal age attestation api would make it a lot easier for parents to control what their child sees, assuming the internet adopts it broadly.
It's not meant to even inconvenience adults who own their own devices. People complaining about this must have trouble opening child seals on their medicine.
First the birthdate, then the ID. Just like the states who block porn.
Are you MAGA or ML. It’s hard to tell the difference.
Do you seriously believe the next step won't be requiring certification by a private third party verification setup? Which you'll have to pay for, probably as an annual fee.
I would be opposed to that hypothetical proposal. This real proposal, helpfully linked, has none of that. It's the same way how I'm in favor of energy independence but oppose fracking. How I'm in favor of legalization and hate the idea of phillip-morris joints. Just because two policies have a vaguely similar idea of 'protecting children' doesn't mean they are equal.
Colorado proposed similar.
Agreed. New York, Louisiana, and Utah too.
All bat shit.