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.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, 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 spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just 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:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
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.
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.
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.
How is your first reason an argument against OS-level check?
It's not needed, thar's the parents job. Not the OS' job
People keep saying this. Is it not within an operating system's purview to provide parents tools to configure what their kid can do with the system? Have parental controls been out-of-scope for all these OSes this whole time?
Whether it should be government-mandated is one question, but it seems more like this "it's the parent's job, not the OS's" has become a tagline that people just repeat rather than really thinking through it.
Is your expectation then that parents should sit over their kids' shoulder every moment that they access the internet? Are our tools not supposed to make that easier to handle?
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)
I thought that this is what you were getting at here, which is why I asked how this was an argument against values held locally on the device.
Whether it should be government-mandated is one question, but it seems more like this “it’s the parent’s job, not the OS’s” has become a tagline that people just repeat rather than really thinking through it.
People usually repeat it for calls for checks on online platforms, not just within the scope of OS - but its primarily stated because people, quite fairly, don't want to see websites having to shut down, or them losing access entirely, or losing access without handing over private data because of parents inability to control their childs access to the internet.
I see the numerous websites having to close down because they can't/won't do the integration.
I mean look at YT.
The stupid COPPA law prevents me from reading funny comments under cartoon intros because youtube couldnt be arsed to prevent kids from using the regular youtube app instead of the "youtube kids" app.
Even some meme clips are barred because youtube thinks they are "for kids" (lmao) (Example. Ironically those videos, when shared, don't have a tracking id in the url and some of the quick access share options like for whatsapp are not available, only the internal share options by the OS)
Another example that grinds my gears on YT:
- Mini player is deactivated, because supposedly kids could watch the forbidden sauce in a minimized video while the parent couldnt see wht it was.
- Adding to playlists is forbidden. But why??? What is so dangerous about being able to add a video to a playlist? Just deny kids to watch a playlist if it's not 100% populated with "made for kids" or something.
- Commenting is disabled. Even if the account is known to be a verified adult account.
All of these just because some USA state needed to extend their reach across country borders because they are headquartered there.
Just restrict it to USA-IPs or something. ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Sure. I think clearly this thread has been talking about the OS piece specifically. I wholly disagree with having some private company that collects IDs and makes the determination themselves. If instead your browser can just ask your device if you have parental controls enabled, then that removes the privacy concern entirely, as far as I know. Is there an extra data point for browser fingerprinting? Yeah, I guess. But I would also assume that anyone who cares to avoid this fingerprinting is going to not have parental controls enabled.
Essentially, I'm confused why the world gave up so quickly on parental controls (not really confused—the alternative provides more surveillance capability).
But even if it happened purely at the OS level, it would be laughably unenforceable at best.
Essentially, I’m confused why the world gave up so quickly on parental controls (not really confused—the alternative provides more surveillance capability).
I can easily imagine a piece of software parents can download, for free, that if installed would basically function akin to a virus on someone's computer - it blacklists much of the internet and is updated and maintained by a company that updates the allowed sites and banned sites regularly. It could not be turned off. If it crashes, is ended by force, it automatically reloads - and any attempts to remove it sends emails or text messages to the owners (the parents) who would know something is up. It could be turned off only by the parent putting in a specific password to disable it, and if they forgot, they would have to phone the company to get it reset.
Any responsible parent would install this on the phones and computers of their kids and it would do everything they need.
One thing I said before is the question of what is the research on this, and how do we know child internet safety is actually a problem? I don't know the statistics on this, and I haven't done much studying on it yet. So I will admit that I have been operating under the premise that this is an issue to begin with. Someone mentioned routers with parental blocks. Aside from being able to easily disconnect from the network (inevitability for kids because it's easy and they have plausible deniability, in my opinion), if child internet safety is currently an issue, then clearly there is something about it that isn't working.
But even if it happened purely at the OS level, it would be laughably unenforceable at best.
Don't get me wrong, it would still require another component whether that be a requirement for websites to query the OS via the browser, or a database of "bad" websites.
Now, if you want there to be an app that handles this, that's your opinion and I respect that. Personally, I would rather it be built into the OS. Least of all because already-on-your-device is easier than something parents need to research and download on their kids' devices. More significantly, if this kind of capability becomes an expectation for your general usage OSes to have, then that's less incentive for some company to come in and try to capitalize off of it and charge $12.99 per month, and then still have incentive to collect and sell data on which sites are being visited. I mean, you can be reasonably sure that Microsoft is gonna do that too, but that would be another reason to switch to a Linux distro that doesn't do that.
I meant there would be no way to stop any OS from just waving users through and automatically converting their account into an 'adult account', or just asking users "Are you 18 yes/no". How many variations of Linux are there now?
More significantly, if this kind of capability becomes an expectation for your general usage OSes to have, then that’s less incentive for some company to come in and try to capitalize off of it and charge $12.99 per month, and then still have incentive to collect and sell data on which sites are being visited. I mean, you can be reasonably sure that Microsoft is gonna do that too, but that would be another reason to switch to a Linux distro that doesn’t do that.
I'd be in favour of the government commissioning and funding this and making it free-to-access for parents.
I meant there would be no way to stop any OS from just waving users through and automatically converting their account into an 'adult account', or just asking users "Are you 18 yes/no". How many variations of Linux are there now?
Right, but in this case, the parental controls just wouldn't be doing their job. I mean, you're right—there's nothing you can do about that. But if I'm turning on a setting to enable a parental control and it doesn't enable the parental control, then I'm 1) complaining about Microslop in the case of Windows, or 2) switching my kids to a different distro in the case of Linux. Again, I'm against the idea of government-mandated on the OS side. I'm undecided on the website side of things.
I'm gonna transcribe a section of a comment I made in another post:
Upon setting up the device or account, it is the parent's responsibility to create a password or biometric or whatever to activate/deactivate the safety mode. No personal information required. It should be pretty easy. Are there technically ways for the kid to get around this? Yes, but that'd be breaking the trust. In the same way you'd deal with your kid sneaking out of the house, you deal with that separately. | https://programming.dev/comment/22589550
I'd be in favour of the government commissioning and funding this and making it free-to-access for parents.
That's interesting. I'm in America and, unless it's FOSS, I definitely 100% do not trust a government-commissioned application that needs to see and manage all of my home's network traffic in order to work. Especially not right now.
Right, but in this case, the parental controls just wouldn’t be doing their job. I mean, you’re right—there’s nothing you can do about that. But if I’m turning on a setting to enable a parental control and it doesn’t enable the parental control, then I’m 1) complaining about Microslop in the case of Windows, or 2) switching to a different distro in the case of Linux. Again, I’m against the idea of government-mandated on the OS side. I’m undecided on the website side of things.
Well if it's not mandated (on the OS side that you refer to) then sure.
That’s interesting. I’m in America and, unless it’s FOSS, I definitely 100% do not trust a government-commissioned application that needs to see and manage all of my home’s network traffic in order to work. Especially not right now.
I mean it would be opt-in. Me and you wouldn't ever get it and websites and developers wouldn't be burdened by it. That's the point.
No problem with your excerpt there either.
Whether it should be government-mandated is one question,
That:s my primary issue
Is your expectation then that parents should sit over their kids' shoulder every moment that they access the internet? Are our tools not supposed to make that easier to handle?
In a perfect world, I would want APIs and other integrations be made available that will do that and the parent will only need to press a button to allow/deny it.
Not really government mandated but voluntarily by a group that executes the vision of a parent, requested by the government (due to requests by the parental society but not because corps deciding they need/want more controllable elements) and the technical parties (e.g. OS devs) that can integrate the wish.
Unfortunately this will probably be a mandated integration requiring everyone, doesnt matter if a child is existing, to authenticate that they are truly legally able to access the device and/or ressource.
Great, now as a childless person I have to do those things because some were irresponsible and ruined it for everyone :/
I hope I could communicate my issue.
Whether it should be government-mandated is one question,
That:s my primary issue
That's my issue too. We're in agreement, but I just wanted to point out that the "it's the parent's job, not the OS's" doesn't communicate that and instead applies a blanket statement that actually undermines what you're saying you want.
The other guy is right when they say it applies to the check existing on the web-level. That is the issue, in my opinion, and I think people are just conflating that issue with the OS value's merit. Having a check at web level is actually what removes the responsibility and capability for parents to parent their children. Having it at the OS level makes it a tool for parents to use. They don't have to set it up, but the idea is that it makes it really easy for parents with zero computer prowess.
Again, should it be government mandated on the OS side? I strongly don't think so. But if anyone has a good solution to not mandate developers to respect the browser's report of the parental controls setting, I'd love to hear it (zero sarcasm, I don't want to have anyone breathing down my neck to implement this stuff either). The best I can think of is to take advantage of AI, but I can see why it could be unsavory. Should the browser itself carry a database of sites it has scanned and then use that to determine whether a site is safe? Should it query a user-owned model that's more customizable for the parent's tastes? Can we get that to run locally for everyone?
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.
Most people think the Nazis only locked up Jews. Some realise they also locked up minorities.
They started with the impoverished, queer, and disabled.
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. They changed the argument.
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?
You went from "Why do they want my information?"
To
"I'm not concerned with sharing my age. But how should we do it?"
And that itself is the root issue.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because it has little to do with protecting anyone and is another gross violation of privacy to serve corporate interests.
So
- Unenforceable
- Inaccurate
- Over-reaching
- 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?
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.
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 protects 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.
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.
How can you provide the capability for parents to keep their children off inappropriate websites if you don't require that sites adhere to a conduct?
(I'm simply asking why this makes it an inherently bad solution—not suggesting that there aren't better solutions.)
Parents, schools, employers, and governments, already use content controls to restrict users from accessing undesirable sites and services on the internet.
Searching the terms "content blocking" or "parental controls" will get you lists of apps and services doing just that.
Parents already have the capability. This law doesn't provide any additional capability for parents to parent their kids. This law seeks, instead, to remove the power and responsibility of parenting from the parents, and assign it to pornographers. They want the operators of adult websites around the world to be the ones determining whether or not to provide content to their kids.
What this law actually does is provide a means for a website to determine whether an adult or a child is trying to access their content, and to use that information to decide what content to provide. The thinking is that a respectable services like Netflix will be able to decide to provide only age-appropriate content, blocking kids from adult content.
However, that also means that services like "KidGroomer dot com" will be able to provide different content to adults than it does to children. To an adult, they can portray themselves as a site that provides information on how to protect kids from grooming. But when a kid visits, this law lets the site know it is a kid. The site can now show them kid-targeted content, like how to get in contact with the nearest candy-giving stranger.
Perhaps we don't actually want a website to be able to determine whether there is a kid on the other side of the screen.
As others have said
It has nothing to do with age checking, protecting the children, or security. NOTHING.
Having a gatekeeper behind what you can use on your own hardware is always bad.
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.
Because it will only be a simple birthdate until they decide to use those laws to go even further.
Show us your ID, then. Or even just your age. Now your children too.
Don't want to? That's why.
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
It's a slippery slope and also regulatory capture as the only ones with the means to actually pull this off are the Big Tech companies.
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.