Well that’s just nonsensical. The only obligation it removes for software developers is the need to obtain (and justification for storing) personally identifying information on its users. Websites and apps would still be responsible for moderating their content and only serving appropriate content to underage users. It wouldn’t do anything whatsoever to remove accountability for Meta.
That’s also just a minorities to the data intrusion and surveillance this is really building. Data is king, and adding age and other demographics obtained at the OS level to more sell more targeted adds to manipulate people.
The same data bend used to target political opponents by governments.
But it’s cool. It’s for the safety of the kids!!!
Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.
This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.
If the companies already have to do this, then what is the point of the OS asking for more personal notifying information than it needs just to operate? Thank beyond the seemingly “simplicity” of this and think how it can be used against you. Then decide if it’s rational.
People thought the patriot act was a great idea after 911… They were wrong.
Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.
Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.
Let’s just say meta delivers some problematic content that traumatizes a kid and really upsets parents. This content was on the 12-year-olds Chromebook. The kid, then setting up the laptop with his parents had his age in there appropriately, and Met used theAPI to obtain it to prevent adult content delivery.
However, kid is tech savvy, creates a secondary accounts, says they are 45. Maybe uses parents ID or something to do it. They then get the adult content. Parents file suit.
Meta lawyers: Our API works as designed, and we can be held liable when the OS API says the person is 45 and not 12.
Case dismissed. Profit.
How is that any different from what happens today? Kid makes fake account - gets adult content - Meta shrugs and says they did what they could. Of course there would be ways it can be circumvented, this would change nothing about that situation except shift the responsibility of correctly inputting the users age onto the user, which is where it should be. I’d much rather have that scenario than one where meta is forcing all users to upload government IDs; Using that excuse to harvest and store even more data than necessary.
Should you have to verify your age to your car before you can turn it in, to drive to the DMV before you can obtain your license and registration? Who should have the burden?
Should your front door verify your age before you leave to go buy alcohol from the local liquor store?
Should your bed verify your age and the age of your lover before you have sex?
Also, this isn’t even the biggest problem, the problem is this is just more surveillance. Don’t comply in advance. Default to protect and keep your freedom by protecting your privacy.
I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified.
Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I’m describing is exactly how it’s been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn’t need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.
Well that’s just nonsensical. The only obligation it removes for software developers is the need to obtain (and justification for storing) personally identifying information on its users. Websites and apps would still be responsible for moderating their content and only serving appropriate content to underage users. It wouldn’t do anything whatsoever to remove accountability for Meta.
That’s also just a minorities to the data intrusion and surveillance this is really building. Data is king, and adding age and other demographics obtained at the OS level to more sell more targeted adds to manipulate people. The same data bend used to target political opponents by governments. But it’s cool. It’s for the safety of the kids!!!
Companies are already required to ask if their users are kids because, among other reasons, there are laws against creating ad profiles for kids, and companies have been sued for doing this even accidentally. The California law just changes how they’re required to check if they’re a kid from asking them at account creation to asking the OS at account creation, where the parents have set the age for them when the OS account was created. It gives the company checking if they’re a kid no more information than they had before. I agree with Havoc8154@mander.xyz that this is totally reasonable.
This particular federal bill, on the other hand seems closer to the Florida bill in that it requires some form of age verification instead of just accepting what the parents enter when creating the OS account. That is unreasonable. Complain to your representative, and we’ll see how it gets amended.
If the companies already have to do this, then what is the point of the OS asking for more personal notifying information than it needs just to operate? Thank beyond the seemingly “simplicity” of this and think how it can be used against you. Then decide if it’s rational. People thought the patriot act was a great idea after 911… They were wrong.
Because for the purpose of securing kids accounts, it doesn’t make sense for the kids to enter their ages themselves each time they create an account at a new website.
Tell me how it can be used against me. It doesn’t give out any information beyond what I let it give out about me, and that information (an age range) is derived from information I get to make up. Remember, the California law doesn’t require any verification of the age data that is given to the OS.
https://youtu.be/beZAkeJcv80
He said exactly the same thing I said: laws like the California one that don’t require age verification are fine.
Let’s just say meta delivers some problematic content that traumatizes a kid and really upsets parents. This content was on the 12-year-olds Chromebook. The kid, then setting up the laptop with his parents had his age in there appropriately, and Met used theAPI to obtain it to prevent adult content delivery. However, kid is tech savvy, creates a secondary accounts, says they are 45. Maybe uses parents ID or something to do it. They then get the adult content. Parents file suit. Meta lawyers: Our API works as designed, and we can be held liable when the OS API says the person is 45 and not 12. Case dismissed. Profit.
But okay, definitely nonsensical.
How is that any different from what happens today? Kid makes fake account - gets adult content - Meta shrugs and says they did what they could. Of course there would be ways it can be circumvented, this would change nothing about that situation except shift the responsibility of correctly inputting the users age onto the user, which is where it should be. I’d much rather have that scenario than one where meta is forcing all users to upload government IDs; Using that excuse to harvest and store even more data than necessary.
Should you have to verify your age to your car before you can turn it in, to drive to the DMV before you can obtain your license and registration? Who should have the burden?
Should your front door verify your age before you leave to go buy alcohol from the local liquor store?
Should your bed verify your age and the age of your lover before you have sex?
Also, this isn’t even the biggest problem, the problem is this is just more surveillance. Don’t comply in advance. Default to protect and keep your freedom by protecting your privacy.
😐 How do you think they will verify the age entered into the OS? Smh
So you didn’t bother to read my original post I guess, no wonder you’re confused.
I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified. Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I’m describing is exactly how it’s been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn’t need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.
And that’s precisely why I’m switching to a distro that doesn’t use systemd.