Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
This is a law FOR PARENTS.
It’s not a law for children, it doesn’t target to protect children from up, but to give parents the tools to set the age of the kids themselves.
Do you have any proof that those systems were created for control? You sure have if you express your opinions with such confidence.
I can’t reconcile the fact that the entire discussion is about how we can control, based on user age settings at the OS level, the content people can access and you asking me what my proof is that the system is being created for control.
I really don’t know how to respond because it’s self evident, isn’t it? It’s there in the law? Why else add the tag to the user? Like… I just…what? Of course it’s for fucking control. There’s no other reason to have it.
As for a more broad general “the government wants to control”…I just… Look around? DMCA is a prime example. Or read people that are smarter than me about it.
They even say why I’m the message
Now I can hear you already. “But EFF says age verification is the real evil and this isn’t verification! It’s just a text tag any root user can change!”
And that’s where I’m saying it isn’t. Now. But it will be. Who is pushing for this? Do you think they’ll be okay with a giant Linux loophole? Or will they try to close it? Is that not always the typical pattern with laws? Pass it then patch the loopholes.
We’ve gone from “click to prove you’re 18” to “provide a date” to “provide an id” to “make the OS and other apps verify.”
Why should I ever assume that it will stop at a simple plain text annotation? The slippery slope is documented. It’s real.
This is a poor wording
That law doesn’t require to verify the age of the user, it doesn’t have to, because it’s a law for parents.
What you’re saying is exactly slippery slope. You’re taking earlier examples of completely different laws, with different purposes and mechanisms, and you make your argument based on how the implementation of those laws worked.
Occam’s razor explanation of DMCA 1201: The law makers wanted to foolproof the law and implemented security measures that weren’t needed.
Also THE only argument you have for the fact thisaw is going to be changed is the law that changed (even if only temporarily) IN A GOOD DIRECTION!
You really made me laugh.
I want to know that too.
I know meta lobbied for app store accountability act or smth, I don’t remember it’s name. They didn’t do that to spy on people, but because they wanted to shift the blame.