414
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

Senate Bill 26-051 reflects that pattern. The bill does not directly regulate individual websites that publish adult or otherwise restricted content. Instead, it shifts responsibility to operating system providers and app distribution infrastructure.

Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established. The provider would then generate an age bracket signal and make that signal available to developers through an application programming interface when an app is downloaded or accessed through a covered application store.

App developers, in turn, would be required to request and use that age bracket signal.

Rather than mandating that every website perform its own age verification check, the bill attempts to embed age attestation within the operating system account layer and have that classification flow through app store ecosystems.

The measure represents the latest iteration in a series of Colorado efforts that have struggled to balance child safety, privacy, feasibility and constitutional limits.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 33 points 14 hours ago

Moving the responsibility to anyone but the parents.

[-] zerofk@lemmy.zip 6 points 14 hours ago

But who will verify the parents’ age?

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago
[-] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 45 points 19 hours ago

Now instead of asking to verify age, make the parents input the age bracket and you reinvented parental controls. The correct way to protect children.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Yeah this will end well.

[-] texture@lemmy.world 26 points 22 hours ago

HOLY HELL

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

[-] arcine@jlai.lu 2 points 13 hours ago

You know what ? If this law is only imposed on commercial operating systems, and I can make my free OS lie and say I'm 100+ ; then maybe this could work.

[-] Matty_r@programming.dev 4 points 12 hours ago

No, you'll only be able to access the internet on approved devices. Anything that isn't under their full control will be disallowed.

[-] khanh@lemmy.zip 11 points 19 hours ago

It's aight. We have Linux anyways, who cares about Windows?

[-] me_myself_and_I@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

You will need to verify your age to breath the freaking air next!

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago

It's already laughably easy to parent these days. Parental controls are on every device and require so little effort. You dont even have to pay that much attentjo - the software literally analyzes use and reports notification. It's so stupidly easy and still people can't do it. Literally ask any of supporters of this what parental control system they use and most are dumbfounded and just change the topic.

It's never about protecting kids.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago

Eh… I agree that age checks are dumb, but have you ever tried parental controls on most phones these days? They are all complete shit.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

What? The software is incredible these days. It literally detects dangers and warns you. Check out Bark which is only 14$/mo but even Google family does a lot of that for free

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 14 hours ago

I’m sorry, but paying a third party subscription for a janky solution isn’t “incredible”.

Last I looked the kid just needed to learn how to vpn and it was over. Granted that was a few years ago. But I've not seen a software solution that there wasn't a way around. Unless you get something like a Gab phone for them.

[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

If the child ignores the parents and uses hacks to bypass parenting controls then no parenting control will ever help. It's a tool and it must be based on existing parenting foundation not replace parenting.

If a child receives a smartphone the very minimum parents must do is establish trust in the social contract between the two parties: "I give you a phone and use a privacy respecting parental control if you agree to not mess with it and keep me in the loop". If this simple base cannot be established then all parental control is moot and we failed already.

It's really not that hard. I used to think these magement and conflict parts are the hard parts of parenting but it's really not, the hard part is how much time/energy kids eat up to the point where it's easy to be lazy and not pursue management solutions which are really simple.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

From what I've seen on iOS it seems pretty tied down. You can set times when they can use specific apps, choose if they can edit contacts, have contact with people not in their contacts, make it so they can't change their passcode, make it so they can't log out of their account so they can't bypass it, set up ask to buy or w.e and make it so they can't install apps without your permission or get approvals sent to you for purchasing things. You can review all their screen times for individual apps without even picking up their device... And modify it from your device.

The only real bypass would be to factory reset the phone using a computer, but to get passed the activation lock they would need the password, and you could simply put the trust phone number as the parents number, thus the phone would be a brick and the parent would be notified when they attempted(and failed) to log back into the phone.

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

They are coming for android first.

[-] hector@lemmy.today 42 points 1 day ago

Colorodo democrats have always been lousy. Here they are following texas and montana and tennessee, locking down the internet with dishonest arguments. No one in reality thinks this is about protecting kids, and it's not the state's place to do so, it's the parents, it's a violation of the 1st amendment to make adults expose their identities to people recording everything they do online and using it against them, and selling it to the government.

We need to repeal these bills, and we need a popular open source of model legislation to counter-act ALEC, that writes these bills and state lawmakers just fill in the blanks, after the united corporations give them a plausible excuse to and pay them off

[-] jali67@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

It is the donors influencing all of them. Corrupt fucks

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 33 points 1 day ago

At this point, it's probably cheaper and more effective to have proper sex education in schools...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 212 points 2 days ago

This is getting ridiculous.

Linux is the only reasonable choice anymore.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 127 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Linux won't be legal in Colorado if they pass this. You'll need an account with some age-policing, ID-reporting corporation to be able to use a computing device.

How do they imagine they could enforce this though? Presumably quite selectively, based on the user's political leanings.

[-] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours ago

I dunno, the language suggests to me it can be worked around. It states age verification to make the OS account. Linux doesn't require accounts. This seems to target Microsoft and Apple account creation (since you won't be able to use the OS without one) and of course Google will implement account requirements on Android

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 79 points 2 days ago

I fully expect this to become a move to hamper linux, or any non-windows desktop usage, because "we can't trust a user who has full access to their OS" or some other bullshit.

[-] mech@feddit.org 101 points 2 days ago

Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established.

It's so fucking obvious the people who wrote this have no idea other operating systems than iOS, Windows and Android exist.

[-] Attacker94@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

I think it is notable that it never makes assumptions about the verification method, so it could just be a simple parental control system. Granted I have no doubts that the corpos will take this as requiring Id, but the bill itself makes no such requirements.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

These people are idiots

[-] melfie@lemy.lol 69 points 2 days ago

AFAIK, only adults can sign up for internet access, so a minor watching porn on the internet is the same as said minor watching their parents’ adult DVDs or drinking alcohol their parents purchased. It’s already illegal for adults to give minors access to these things, so what’s next? Alcohol bottles that only open and DVDs / Bluerays that only play if you can provide an ID and prove your age every time?

[-] cheesorist@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

its not about limiting children's access to porn and other stuff, it never was.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
414 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

81759 readers
3293 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS