134
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
134 points (94.7% liked)
Technology
84324 readers
4460 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TL;DR: The bill does not ban anyone under 18 from chatting online. It requires age verification and then requires that children not be allowed to be viewed, DM'd, tagged or sent money by anyone not connected to them (on their friend's list). It requires the site to allow parents to opt out of this feature.
This article was posted 3 hours ago and it doesn't seem like any of the commenters here have read past the headline. Everyone is reacting to the headline and the headline is flat out wrong.
This bill does not ban anyone under 18 from chatting online.
It does require age verification, however:
If a person is determined to be a minor then:
The bill makes it so that strangers can't DM children, tag them in photographs, or send them money. It allows parents to choose to opt out of this feature and it requires that sites not use Dark Patterns to interfere with the opt-out process.
It does not, in any way, prevent children under 18 from chatting online. It prevents people from DMing children and sending them money.
Violations allow the AG can sue the company for damages and a $5,000 fine per occurrence.
Age verification = mandatory surveillance, which will fail to keep kids from accessing whatever the verification method is intended to block.
Except for the mandatory age verification it doesn't seem bad at all. "Except for" is doing a heavy lift there however.
So adults don't have to verify their age right? Cuz it's only for kids, right?
I hid the answer to your question in the text of the comment that you replied to.
Im pretty shure that was a sarcastic rethorical question through and we all now the answer...
Ah. Well, we shouldn't look for details about the story in the comments, or by reading the headline.
Often, as is the case here, the headline is misleading or completely wrong.
This is a sarcastic rhetorical response but, like, in a chill vibes kinda way.