> I really don't think we're in a position of choosing between no age-based access mechanism, and age-based access mechanism.
It is impossible to win a battle you stop fighting.
It is impossible to win a battle you stop fighting.
I think that if these types of laws (illinois, california) don't hit a critical mass, we're going to see ID verification become the dominant method of age verification. Most websites will use it, and it'll become global because it's easier to just demand an ID and a photo for every user through some third party provider than to offer looser restrictions for the handful of states that have different demands.
This is especially true since it's now been demonstrated that states (like Texas) can go after out-of-state sites serving people in Texas. Sure, you could scrupulously try to identify which state someone is in and use the appropriate level of verification, but then you might be liable if it turns out it was someone from Texas or Georgia or Britain using a VPN.
You are assuming that age verification must necessarily happen. It needs to be destroyed at every possible juncture.
A summary for those not familiar with it:
• Operating systems on devices whose primary user is a child must provide a way for the parent to provide age bracket information about the child.
• They must also provide an API that apps and app stores can use to find out that age range if they need to have limits on what children can do with them.
• They amended it to not apply to most open source operating systems.
Note that there is no actual age verification. It just uses what the parents put in. It is really just requiring each OS to have a standardized parental control system.
It's also the wrong way around: apps shouldn't ask for an age range, apps should provide one and the OS should do the checking.
I also object to it because it's a foot in the door for demanding that websites and apps care about that age range.
And most importantly, devices already provide parental controls in practice, and this law doesn't make those any better, it just unnecessarily cements one aspect of them into law. You can, already, on many devices, say "don't allow installing apps without permission", or "don't allow installing apps except those with this rating".
This has been the case for literally decades. Social media sites aren't (technically) supposed to allow users under 13, and porn sites have obviously had this concern since forever.
This law does in fact make parental controls better by forcing the social media companies to change how they present content to minors.
I don't totally disagree that the impetus should be on the social media companies instead of the OS but i also genuinely don't see a problem with a voluntary adult/minor flag with a consistent API either
And addictive feeds are a problem for everyone, of any age.
I mean look, up to me, sure, ban Facebook entirely or whatever, but i genuinely don't get why they shouldn't be required to exclude kids if they're gonna exist?
Hey, give credit where credit's due.
The first to try that was NJ going after 3d printed gun developers.