Ysk about ageless linux to protest the age attestation that has passed in California. Ysk because the laws are unjust and discriminate against volunteer apps/OSs such as Linux distros.
Ysk about ageless linux to protest the age attestation that has passed in California. Ysk because the laws are unjust and discriminate against volunteer apps/OSs such as Linux distros.
According to the legislation, the concepts of “user” and “18 and over” are mutually exclusive. Anyone over 18 is “an account holder”.
The most charitable reason I can think of that they would do this is that short phrases like “minor user”, that would otherwise be far better choices, have an unwanted secondary reading that the creators of the law sought to avoid (that being “user of minors”), and they wished to keep things more terse than repeated use of the phrase “user under the age of 18”.
I don’t think that’s a good enough excuse to blatantly redefine a well-established term, even if the scope of the redefinition is limited. Even if there’s precedent for having done similarly in the past.
And it’s all but guaranteed that someone will attempt to leverage that redefinition outside of the scope.
Plus they also allow a user to present an age bracket of “over 18” despite defining users as under 18. I think they just did a bad job of clearly scoping it. It should be clear that it’s a tool for a parent to use and that it’s merely requiring that software implement age signaling all the way from OS to website to application. A default OS configuration should have no age defined and nothing should require an age to be defined. But if a parent does define an age then that signal should be honored.