Hacker News Reader

Comment by gspetr | Hacker News Reader

A), which is the status quo. I don't see any other option as realistic.

B) makes things worse in several ways, but primarily by stifling innovation. Only large incumbents will have no trouble paying for the measures required to ensure compliance.

There's also the cost of enforcement, which will likely have to be borne by the taxpayers. I don't think this is a good thing to spend money on.

C) cannot be enforced, and any good faith attempts will cost more than the damage from harm they're supposed to prevent.

View on HN

Option A isn't really the status quo. The status quo has a bunch of sites doing invasive checks and other sites region blocking users.

> Only large incumbents will have no trouble paying for the measures required to ensure compliance.

Oh my gawwwwwd. People trot this out any time any regulation is mentioned. Option B is a single easily accessible age category value. It's simpler than the status quo.

> Option B is […] simpler than the status quo.

This bill FORBIDS platforms from operating in the state unless they provide age verification.

Forbid an OS for operating in Illinois? Sounds insane to me. When I bring my Linux laptop from California, what happens?

I'm not really focused on the exact wording of this bill. But mandating distros have a useradd and glibc with an extra couple functions is not a significant burden.

So... a pinky swear then, right?

I mean, how is the OS going to actually verify the age of the operator?

I see how this helps Facebook - if you lie to the OS, and the OS tells Facebook that you're over 18, then it's not Facebook's fault if they provide you an 18+ service.

I don't see how this helps anyone else.

It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.

That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.

I have no experience with minors using Linux. Do they not typically have sudo access?

> It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.

You are assuming the parent is the administrator of the computer.

I am not assuming that. That's why it's a "can". Parental controls are always "can".

The thing we want (well, that other people want, I have other views) is that large tech companies are not able to brainwash kids.

The thing this creates is liability on parents, or schools, or anyone who provides computer access to children. And access to PII for bad guys (who can ask your computer for your date of birth in this proposal, right?)

> The thing we want (well, that other people want, I have other views) is that large tech companies are not able to brainwash kids.

That has little connection with this law.

And having no age settings at all is where you'll have the most brainwashing.

> The thing this creates is liability on parents, or schools, or anyone who provides computer access to children. And access to PII for bad guys (who can ask your computer for your date of birth in this proposal, right?)

They're already responsible for controlling that. I think they should have more tools to help.

> And access to PII for bad guys (who can ask your computer for your date of birth in this proposal, right?)

Did you look at the law(s)? They get one of four age ranges.

so the kid boots linux off a usb stick and makes this pointless

I hope the number of downvotes you’re receiving makes you consider the absurdity of your suggestion.

Have you seen distrowatch? Are you going to go track down maintainers from every distro - many of whom live outside of the U.S. - and demand they implement this? The smaller ones would probably ignore you or tell you to get fucked, the larger ones with funding might decide to drag you into court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com