389
System76 on Age Verification Laws (blog.system76.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Liberty has costs, but it's worth it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -21 points 6 months ago (9 children)

The laws should be enforcing open standards, not closing things down.

The CA law does push for open standards.

Specifically a standard way for app stores to get the age range of users, the alternatives are:

  • Bury heads in sand and let companies target kids
  • UK/AUS style bans.

Realistically I think talking about RSS readers as a way to stop kids getting hooked on loot boxes is burying your head in the sand though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    It's an open standard that could lead to tighter controls on devices in the future. That's an extremely slippery slope. Wouldn't it make more sense to require age verification for social media platforms and outlaw online gambling? Why deanonymize the devices themselves? I suspect it has nothing to do with protecting children.

    If I had to speculate, I think the people in power are scared of how much on-device AI could empower the masses and they're laying the groundwork to curtail it right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -13 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    It’s an open standard that could lead to tighter controls on devices in the future.

    You could say that about anything? Are you opposed to oauth/openid because it could lead to tighter controls in the future?

    Why deanonymize the devices themselves?

    Have you read the law? It doesn't deanonymize anything.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to require age verification for social media platforms?

    You say that like requiring Reddit to do actual age verification is better than your OS asking you to enter your age on your account.

    and outlaw online gambling?

    I think we should ban online gambling, but that's also an actual ban instead of the open standards that YOU were asking for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    If the social media platforms are the problem, then why control the devices and not the social media platforms? Makes no sense unless there's an ulterior motive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    What control do you think this law puts on devices?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    It's not this law, it's the precedent and how it'll be used sd leverage later to push super invasive and manipulative shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    So a law that is deliberately done in the least invasive way, sets a president to push invasive and manipulative shit?

    Can you explain how? Like in any way? When it's clearly going to reduce the manipulation of kids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Know what? I'll bite. Let's have a civil discussion how this is either actually beneficial to 'save the kids' or, on the other hand, this is just the first step of a process designed to force full surveillance at the OS level, now that people are finally starting to care a bit about their privacy.

    If it is to do something to keep the kids away from harm (you mentioned to reduce manipulation of kids) how does spinning 3 wheels with numbers, attached to no verification whatsoever, help? This is that useless 'Are you over 18?' pop-up all over again, where you just click 'yes' and move on with whatever it is you wanted to get away with. So, on that front, unless this is designed to put undue extra responsibility and work on the OS developers, this makes no sense (of course, I'm more than willing to hear you counter this theory).

    Now, if it's just that first step, the politicians trying to see what else they can get away with pushing on the population, one step at a time, next they will add 'the OS will require a picture of the user holding an ID to confirm the entered date of birth, but it will remain local, the OS will just reply yes or no to the apps requesting the info'. Then it'll be 'will be sent to a government database for safeguarding', and so on until you no longer can get away from not showing your face and ID to everyone out there.

    Anyway, which one makes more sense to you, honestly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Slippery nipples for everyone!

    It's crazy that the reddit/Lemmy hivemind opposes the most mild regulations on predatory app stores and the argument is well this law is fine but it COULD slippery nipples our way to a much worse law that is completely different in its form and intent than this law.

    I guess you can take the corporate surveillance out of reddit, but you can't take the libertarian instincts out of the redditors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Hardly a 'hive mind' situation when everything governments all over the world and big corporations have shown, time and again, that they will step up the surveillance any chance they get, try to get away with it, and if they do (which happens all too often), step it up yet again, rinse and repeat.

    But you follow your optimistic way of view, at least you'll be happier than most of us until you see how right we've been all along.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent