>>108396888
It isn't good, it just opens doors to eventual attestation.
What is the reasonable and smart way to do it is to have the websites with adult content to send a header so that the client can decide not to fetch it.
But you won't see that be done because the goal isnt to protect the children but to do KYC on clients.

>>108396914
There's no KYC at all with the Newsom proposal. It's a number. If you buy the phone you can say 18

>>108396920
Eventually there will be. This is just paving way to that. Just like all the other similar initiatives.

>>108396954
That's such an insane leap. By your logic the porn sites saying "are you over 18" is just paving the way to requiring your birth certificate

>>108396888
>Newsom's proposal
It's Facebook's lobbying at work, and you're a fool if you don't see how age attestation opens the door for age verification. "Welp, that didn't work, we need to go all the way!" What real-world use is age attestation with consideration to the (supposed) child safety argument if they themselves can just install a system and set their age as +18? If lawmakers are really passing these laws in good faith because they believe it's the only way to ensure children's safety online, why half-ass it? It's a boiling frog situation in this case, I argue.

All this is just for the sake of companies being able to collect user data without having to take responsibility whenever they violate laws pertaining to child data collection.

>>108396888
Why do kids need to be on the internet? If you give a kid a device you take responsibility for potentially handing them illegal material

>>108396961
Just remember what you said now when it happens.

If people keep being this naive about actual reasons for this push, you'll find yourself in a world where virtualization features of modern CPUs will be gated behind actual ID verification.

>>108396888
>surely things have never been abused in history
go eat a dick.

>>108397037
How can "You are 18 Y/N" be abused

>>108397044
It's not a y/n, they want id verification to be tied to your computer and eventually all online interactions.

>>108397044
>Users divided into age groups
>Set age as <18
>???
>Profit
The idea is that platforms/programs read this hypothetical age environment variable and restrict interactions/functionalities accordingly. You can imagine what that means for user-to-user interactions.

Take Roblox for example. One such criticism of their age verification and subsequent division of the user base is that, hypothetically, it allows predators to verify themselves as a minor and interact with actual minors, with no responsible older individual around to report them.

>>108396961
>That's such an insane leap. By your logic the porn sites saying "are you over 18" is just paving the way to requiring your birth certificate
Porn sites abroad have already made that leap. They have in parts of the US too.
>>108397044
First when you're proposing an age verification law you come up against the criticism of "how will we check this, how will we reduce user friction to reasonable levels" and after this passes someone can say "we'll just use the built in device age rating we have", and then the question will become "how can we know this age given is accurate" and then you're moving into hardware attestation to ensure that it is accurate.
Maybe they won't do that. You'd have to be willfully ignoring things to not see how this is a part of moving towards that if that is what they wanted though.
There are ways of attesting user age without linking an ID. I wouldn't think it was a big deal if lawmakers forced the use of those. I have hope for the US that they will if they do start towards device based age attestation.

just challenge it in court, textbook 1st amendment violation

>>108396888
OP is spiritually feminine and can be coaxed by saying "just the tip".

>>108397068
That's not what this law is

File: Barrack Obama.jpg (364 KB, 1280x1600)

364 KB JPG

>Hand verification (?) implemented on 4chan
>Scan hand
>Get ban notice
>Check ban
>Ban reason: pool's closed
>mfw

Let's think about this logically. It has nothing to do with "protecting kids", democrats love grooming and raping kids, they all do it. So what's its true purpose? Implicit digital ID without calling it digital ID.

But anon, you say, they can already get a warrant and get your identity if you're doing illegal stuff online, why would they need digital ID? Well, you see, that requires you doing something illegal to warrant a warrant! They want to go after people for non-crimes like wrong-think, so they need a database they can access without a warrant to harass and threaten you on a whim. Their end goal is a police state like the modern UK.

>>108397079
>There are ways of attesting user age without linking an ID.
Such as?

>>108397447
linking a credit card

>>108397107
SCOTUS already has previous ruling that make this shit illegal. California is going to get BTFO day 1.

>>108396961
California's laws aren't reasonable. They don't stop at a reasonable stopping point. They're a single party state and they escalate every single plank in their platform every 2-4 years.
Medical. Guns. Taxes. Chopping kids dicks off. Schooling. Giving more free shit to illegals. Automobiles. It never stops. It is the cultural cachet of the California Democrat to say to themselves "As California Goes, so Goes the Nation". It's in their dna to keep pushing for more.

Think of the children isn't going to stop at 'send us an anonymous age attestation or else'. The right wing and left wing people flying the think of the children flag on this issue are going to push these cases into federal court and that will be the only check on how much attestation will escalate.

>>108396994
>if they themselves can just install a system and set their age as +18?
first of all, kids only use (((phones))) so whoever sets it up at first (parent) can decide the age
and 99% of teenagers won't be installing Linux on their Windows laptop or reinstalling a fresh Windows. and on Macs you can only run MacOS anyway

>>108397624
So you mean to say that the effectiveness of these laws is dependent on the assumption that *all* children are lobotomized niggercattle, the same as their parents, and hoping that they remain as such?

>>108397699
if youre smart and proactive enough to install an OS, you're also able to get a VPN or find a way to sideload apps or otherwise circumvent this whole age verification shit

but for the 95% of tech-averse nigercattle (100% of cis women - exactly those who need to be kept away from social media) this is too hard

>>108396888
In case you still can't understand why a verification system that literally doesn't require an id gets so many hundreds of posts against it, and seemingly everyone is defending that sending your id to every site you want to visit is actually much better somehow, here's your daily reminder.
Facebook is lobbying for strict id verification laws so they can know who exactly everyone is, even if you don't use Facebook. In case this wasn't enough, the biggest id verification companies are in israel. Now it shouldn't be hard to understand why some (people) are really interested in opposing any alternative solution.

>>108396920
If it has no impact then why even pass it at all?

4channers:
>social media and it consequences have been a disaster for human kind
also 4channers:
>ASKING FOR AN AGE??? MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE, MUH TRANNIES >108397608 TOO FOR SOME REASON, AHHHHHHhhhhhhHHHHHHH IM GOING INSANE

>>108396888
>Hello fellow citizens,
>I know my earlier attempts at controlling everything you say and do was poorly received, even after I wrapped it up in "won't somebody think of the children" but here's my new proposal that sets up the framework for everything I wanted before with a few pieces left out today that can be easily inserted later.
>Please support my new proposal because if you don't, you hate children and are a pedo.
>Sincerely,
>A fellow citizen and absolutely not a political scumbag that wants to make criticism of my or my allies illegal.

>>108398207
Parental control only really works on the web if adult sites are forced to query a trusted repository of the parent set limits.

The OS is the appropriate place to set, store and pass on those limits.

>>108396888
You're a fucking retard. They always pass them like harmless laws and scale up the implementation later. Boiling the frog

thats just security through obscurity, pure theatre
it does nothing to change the underlying system of trust
>its not our fault! you didnt lie on our form, you lied to the operating system! that is outside our control! we have no duty of care to our users!
its only good for shifting corporate liability, and that is the only motivation behind it

its an attempt at shifting the debate from the core question
>do we want privacy invading measures?
and its most certainly in bad faith because every operating system already has forms of parental control, parents can set what websites their children can and cant access
it does nothing, it adds nothing

>>108398342
>its only good for shifting corporate liability, and that is the only motivation behind it
According to this thread it's actually because 1984

>>108396888
This is bait.

>>108398342
>forms of parental control, parents can set what websites their children can and cant access
Whitelists are far more work than simply setting an age.

>>108398502
Also on sites with selective access based on age, a whitelist is not ideal. Unless the site has a separate URL/domain for underage, the parent might feel forced to be over or under-protective.

File: Snapchat-1627618635.jpg (49 KB, 540x540)

49 KB JPG

>I know it's reasonable now, but they MIGHT require ID LATER
I don't get it. This basically means we're just in the same situation we were in a year ago. At worst it's kicking the can down the road and at best it's a compromise that avoids the part of the issue that was actually upsetting people. What's the problem?
It just seems like a law that bakes parental controls into the operating system, which I think is completely unnecessary but there are stupider laws on the books

>>108398520
This is why Netflix and other companies claim they're opposed to it, but I feel like there are pretty obvious solutions like requiring the account owner to be an 18+ device or something and the kid can just log in to an adult's account if they have the password

>>108396888
it does nothing, and it (along with all other OS age verification) makes no sense. Whose identity do you use when setting up a data center? Whose identity do you use for business computers? whose identity do you use on your smart fridge? no matter how badly they want to create a police state, the mechanism of accessing the internet without identity verification is necessary and this always be easy to circumvent, making it pointless

>>108397121
It is.
And even, if it was just a yes no then it is entirely useless and may as well not exist.
We all know what's their real goal.

>>108396888
A lot of websites already do this.
Obviously, it doesn't do anything.
>yes, I was born 12 August 1963

They gave up on gun control because it's unenforceable without universal physical presence, but government in this instance understands someone can load software with bullshit, before it goes into use. It comes in babysteps, and it'll become a nonpartisan issue once it gets pitched as being a component of the patriot act if it fails to appeal on the basis of protecten da keeds. If they really wanted to enforce clean internet browsing for anyone under 18 they'd setup DNS servers exclude/redirect from adult domains, but that's not why we're here, we are heading toward a shittier internet/censorship/historical revisionism.

>>108396888
Slippery slope.
It will get worse, it always does.

>>108396888
Compelled speech is unconstitutional. Newsom and all those people that voted for this should be put up against a wall and shot

>>108396888
Feds already violate the CFAA act this just makes it easier for them to frame someone. Every single service has parental controls but what can you expect from a bunch of two faced social media influencers who kayfabe aka us politics

>>108398659
>If they really wanted to enforce clean internet browsing for anyone under 18 they'd setup DNS servers exclude/redirect from adult domain
that's already the default setup for all UK ISPs for a few years now. didnt stop them from passing OSA

>>108398523
Because it gets people used to it, which lowers the resistance to the next step.
Simply look back at the past decades to see the process in action.

>>108398998
By this logic the introduction of credit cards in the sixties means Monero won't exist in the twenties

Doesn't matter. Unconstitutional. I know /g/ is full of Indians who don't understand American laws, but your brown opinions on whether a proposal is reasonable or not are immaterial to their unconstitutionality.

>>108396888
Oh look, it's another "let's give them an inch!" shill thread. Kill yourself, glownigger cunt.

>>108397608
>They don't stop at a reasonable stopping point
Which is actually a pretty good argument as to why this will get struck down in court for being overbroad.

>>108396888
The bigger problem is the government being able to force compelled speech into the source code of operating systems. While on it's own this law doesn't really do much, what it opens the door to is scary. If they can force OSs to add this, they could force them to add OS wide content ID, AI screen monitoring, or mandate that the wallpaper be a picture of Gavin Newsom. There is no limit. Just look at what they're proposing with 3d printers. The law leaves no exceptions to allow the original code to exist in the state of California. Keep in mind that computer code is supposed to be legally protected speech, no different than any book. In other words, if the OS were a book that you were writing, you may not know how you're going to end it, but the state does. Because if the book doesn't go the way the state wants it, you're going to be fined $10,000 per infraction.

>>108399945
Monero basically doesn't exist. 99.99% of payments made by individuals are via either a card or cash, with cash dying off. Maybe some of those new money transfer apps as well.

>>108399989
>Unconstitutional
Your government doesn't give a shit about the constitution, don't bother gaslighting pajeets into thinking you're a stable, democratic and lawful country.

>>108397447
You can get a cryptographic token from some central authority using your ID or a face scan or whatever else that allows you to confirm you have passed the test without any information about who you are or how you passed the test, only that the central authority has given you a key. Zero Knowledge Proofs is the term. It does use the ID, but the ID isn't then linked to any future attestations.
I know you have to send the government a picture of your ID to do this, but, y'know, they already have all the information on that ID. They are the ones who issued it.
I guess if you have no ID, no SSN, no nothing, this would be a problem for you, but that isn't the situation most people are in. Also you could use a face scan for those people, just like how we verify for their alcohol purchases.

All the breeders depend on the government to protect their tax spawn from Tyrone and Abdul as well as you chuds. Most people are docile breeder wagies who have no interest in any revolution or radical change, never mind risking their life for anything. All they care about is waging so that their tax spawn can survive into adulthood and perpetuate the cycle.

>>108396888
kys trying to downplay the issue

>>108400244
Yes, this is the proper way to do it, for example include a code with a vodka bottle which only >21 can buy. Only the casheer sees your ID and the casheer doesn't know the code you get. Only problem with that is kids finding the code which is solved by selling it separately. Would probably be sold for $3 where they sell lotto tickets and gift cards. No one is interested in this because it doesn't offer privacy invasions which is what companies and government want alike.

>>108400622
>No one is interested in this
The EU is planning on mandating ZKPs. People are interested in it.

>>108400693
Of course PEOPLE are interested in it, but none of the big players are interested in a privacy-preserving solution so it's discaraded.

>>108396888
>reasonable compromise
Drown yourself

>>108400895
What about the EU?
They are a big player in terms of digital law.

>>108400693
>citation needed
their current implementation needs fucking Play Integrity to work....

>>108400930
The EU gov. is the best chance for the whole world, sure, it's more likely than the US gov. or any private party (including redhat) to enforce a privacy option but still, chances are SLIM. The stakes are too big here and the EU is also interested in doxxing. But they are arguably more democratic and not cucked by lobbyists so it's not impossible but now california already made a decision so tech giants will follow it.

>>108396961
"Are you 18" was supposed to be enough, but it wasn't according to any new law being made at all. Fuck your shitty argument and fuck you.

>>108400021
There's no reason to chance humoring them at all at this point.

>>108401144
>But they are arguably more democratic
not a single citizen voted for Ursula

2026 will be the year of the Hurd

>>108396961
>By your logic the porn sites saying "are you over 18" is just paving the way to requiring your birth certificate
That is in fact what's happened over the past 5 years you priss.

>>108396888
>but this seems like a reasonable compromise against the surveillance crap
you give give them an inch and they will take a mile there is no compromise theyre trampling all over you and you're letting them do it

>>108396961
that is literally what has happened

File: file.png (370 KB, 937x1030)

370 KB PNG

>>108396961
What year are you posting from?
Some sites use this AI shit as a workaround but they still have you send a picture of you to their server. And some straight up ask or used to ask for your ID.

>>108396961
This is the reality in bongland already.

>>108396994
Are you guys stupid? This isn't about age verification or personal photos or companies collecting data. It's right there in the OP
>GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID CHECKS
This is the end of the slope you retards. Government ID to do anything. This will be tied to digital currency and UBI. Control is going to be centralised and overt.

>>108398523
>it's kicking the can down the road
>issue that was actually upsetting people
There is no issue. Nothing needs to change. Everything about this has been manufactured in service of creating an all encompassing digital ID.

File: 1687551483108171.jpg (16 KB, 647x607)

16 KB JPG

>>108398302
Parental control only really works if parents are actually parenting instead of the government.

>>108396888
let me check if I understood 2026, people are forced to tell their age to the pedomafia ruling the world, to... be protected from the same pedomafia ruling the world?
is that really their argument

>>108396888
You're especially stupid when you think age verification was ever meant to protect the fucking kids their parents leave on their tablets/phones all day. this It's slowly becoming you need your damn ID to use any website, game, or service. The fact that both parties support it tells you what they really want: absolute control and arbitrary censorship.

>>108403411
>parents using tiktok
ITS SO FUCKING OVER

>>108397027
This is being promoted because young people care more about their privacy than the idiots who don't know parental controls exist. Ironic, isn't it?

>>108397345
The UK has been a cesspool of censorship; now living there must be the real hell on earth.

guys i have an idea
make smartphones illegal for minors like other shit allegedly "harmful to children"
kids will go back to the flip phone era and send each other mail and sms, and the world will Heal
but wait, then mr. advertiser will have to give up on his personalized ads and go back to blasting ads targeted at kids on tv! darnito... we can't hurt mr. advertiser's profits like this...

>>108396888
The point of this isn't protecting kids from seeing tits, it's about censorship and control. It doesn't matter if it seems reasonable for protecting children, that's not what it's going to be used for.

>>108396888
You're a moron. The law opens the door to ID verification you dipshit. They'll run with this for a year or so then come back and say "oh this isn't working, we need to tighten this up!" Then they'll modify the law to require you upload an ID.
It's called Boiling the Frog.
Why are they doing this?
It's about total control. Right now they can't get any of their bullshit to stick because every lie they tell gets instantly BTFO on Social Media.
>Hey look Netanyaho is really alive!
>1,000 autists destroy the claim in seconds
That's just one tiny example.
By tying IDs to everything you do, it will scare a majority of those autists into staying quiet and not challenging their propaganda.

>>108403411
Even good parents can't prevent babies from Darwin awarding themselves occasionally. You can't consciously protect kids all the time and you can only do so much to prepare them for the horrors of the internet simply by rearing.

Automated help, helps.

>>108403497
For now OS's will need a standardized attested interface to tell browsers to tell websites the age set for an user by the owner of the device.

Microsoft, Apple and Google should have gotten together to standardize such an interface long ago, it is very sensible. Would have prevented this sloppery slope.

>>108405521
Any 10 year old can simply hit "yes, I am over 18" or put in some random bullshit birthdate. They know this, they're counting on it. It's the excuse they're going to use to escalate to ID verification. So,not wouldn't have mattered if the OS maintainers did this without a law or not.
The end goal doesn't change.

File: hq2.jpg (7 KB, 480x360)

7 KB JPG

>>108396888
wasted trips
next time they will push for ID confirmation because "people can't be trusted to tell their real age"
>"Personally if it were my kid I'd just say they're 18 so they don't get the kiddy gloves bs"
case in point nigger, we either put our foot down now or you can say good bye to having some level of anonymity.

there is literally no justification for any of this, the state can already track you through your ISP and all the spyware on your OS/hardware, they don't need it. this is the brainchild of tech companies, mainly Meta, who just want to sell your data and serve you more targeted advertisement.

Extremely telling how these fags resist voter id so much but want *checks notes* id for turning your computer on

>>108405939
See >>108405487
(Except the moron part, that's for the OP)

>>108396961
>That's such an insane leap. By your logic the porn sites saying "are you over 18" is just paving the way to requiring your birth certificate
The slippery slop is not a fallacy when it come to government power this has been true for all of human history, you are stupid.

>>108398502
being a helicopter parent is far too much work anyway

>>108396961
the irony is rich

>>108396888
Have you tried to not be a retarded parent? Fuck off, I won't read anything.

>>108396888
>>108396961
The absolute state of californians and newsom dickriders

>>108396888
>So when you set up the device, it asks you how old the user of the device is. If you're setting it up for your kid you can say they're 11. If you're setting it up for yourself you can say your age.
Parental controls already exist.

>>108398238
TIL Linux is social media

>>108396888
kys

>>108396961
Yes.

File: 1755293116802708.jpg (124 KB, 653x523)

124 KB JPG

The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act and SB 976 were both shut down by the courts. The Digital Age Assurance Act is literally just a rewording of what the courts declared unconstitutional in the two above cases. Courts are not going to be very sympathetic to California wasting their time yet again.

>>108410474
I hope they hold California lawmakers in contempt and jail them.

Couldn't I theoretically just say I'm 13 and force companies to not track or sell my data?

slippery slope, first it's just a non verified check then they're scanning your face
not that I care, as a seller they know every detail about me already so I couldn't give a single fuck more if they ask me to verify my age
but you faggots are losing your privacy little by little, not that most of you seem to care, voting for the same parties all the time

>>108410769
maybe then they would stop you from posting garbage on the chan

>>108396888
If I go give a calculator app to a bunch of kids in california and it doesn't ask the operating system for their age, I am liable for potentially millions of dollars in fines.
How the fuck is that reasonable?

>>108396888
While i'm generally not a fan of this, this seems like a much preferable solution. I rather have the pc admins be responsible than having to send my id to a million different places. Surely i'll be able to use the OS token in my browser, r-right?

File: 1764759446928564.png (187 KB, 1014x594)

187 KB PNG

>>108396888
>like bro, JUST do this small thing
>it is so easy to do bro
>it totally isn't getting our foot in the door for much bigger change later bro

>>108410769
>he thinks the companies don't track teenagers anyways and just pay fines for it because it's more profitable
lol

>>108396888
If that's all it was then sure, but you know good and well that it isn't going to be used that way. It's more data gathering, less privacy.
Besides, routers already had parental controls. This isn't about the kids.

an idea has been brewing in my mind; how would I live without the internet? As the internet becomes more and more unusable and obnoxious, I'm beginning to mentally prepare myself for when I abandon it.

I wouldn't be able to do it completely. Practically any interfacing with government services is done through online. But I think it be worth trying it for a while at least, a couple of years, to see how it feels. imagine taking a two year break and coming back to see how shit it's gotten.

>>108405895
Here's what I would have done if I were Microsoft/Apple/Google.

- Devices/OS come with password which needs to be entered for any account which can bump age over minimum, reset code can be requested from customer support with some kind of adult check.
- Any program can request an attested age range from OS for current user with user permission
- Browser will pass on attested age range to website on request and user permission

So the 10 year old doesn't get to hit "yes, I am over 18" without the code or the owner allowing it ... or for a PC if they run an alternative OS (BIOS should really have a setting to request a password to secure boot a new OS).

>>108396888
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

>>108396961
Eh I don't think it is actually
The 'are you over 18' thing is more of a disclaimer/warning. It makes no attempt to verify the data.

On a side note, I think they could have taken the disclaimer further and make it scarier/hard to pass so children wouldn't continue. THough I suppose it wouldn't work on kids who are already comfortable with the site

>>108397107
how does this violate 1st amendment?

File: 1727827330770843.webm (1.29 MB, 720x540)

1.29 MB WEBM

>>108396961
An insane leap, just like the NSA's systems eventually being used against citizens.

>>108412607
>how does infringing on free speech violate the 1st amendment?
You are jewish.

>>108412619
>OS tells website if you are underage
>Website refuses to serve you if you are underage
This seems fine to me
Or are you talking about linux distros being compelled to make the checks and support the API?

>>108396888
True

>>108401144
A common tale I suppose. Privacy evenly benefits the masses a little whereas data collection aggregates that benefit into a thousand or so entites. Because those entities stand to benefit greatly, they are willing to lobby states hard and persistently, whilst the public are unable to quantify and concretize how much they would coollectively gain
Even if privacy wins in the 2020s, there's no guarantee that the next batch of politicians in 2030s will have the same inclinations, and the fight would still continue

>>108412626
being required to show id to exercise free speech is an infringement, stop being a kike, the porn argument doesn't work and has never worked, the onus is on the porn site to verify users' age not on society and definitely not on os devs

>>108412655
I see
Does 'navigating a porn site' count as free speech? Or are we talking about age-gated social media specifically?

>>108405488
If your are a good parent you don't give internet access to your kids or only a whitelist.

>>108396888
>So when you set up the device, it asks you how old the user of the device is. If you're setting it up for your kid you can say they're 11. If you're setting it up for yourself you can say your age
If I weren't utterly blackpilled about politics. I would say it's an alright compromise allowing you to have some control over what your kids watche.

>>108396961
can you please fucking kill yourself fucking shill. people like you have made this world unliveable hellhole.

>>108396888
>I actually find Newsom's proposal completely and totally reasonable
If it's just a prompt with asking for your birthday, it's completely useless because everyone will just lie.
This just removes responsiblity from megacorps so they can sell more userdata or it's a slippery slope and everything will be worse.