1.9k
u/aimless_ly 3d ago
What a great way to get youth interested in OSS!
491
221
u/Peach_Muffin 3d ago
This could end to inadvertently end up being a better investment in tech education than traditional computer classes.
→ More replies (1)76
u/TowardsTheImplosion 2d ago
Gonna show my age here: typing classes didn't teach me much of anything. But AIM, and chatting with a half dozen friends at a time? That taught me to type.
I would love to see kids wanting access to a free internet embrace OSS...
28
u/QuantumWonderland 2d ago
As someone that was frequently on the computer prior to typing classes…it actually got me to be a decently fast typer using home keys.
We basically got to do whatever we wanted after finishing the typing sheets so I got fast to play flash games and w/e else. I can now type at 100-130 wpm comfortably without looking.
101/10 would take again.
T
3
→ More replies (1)3
11
u/themanthyththelegend 2d ago
Hopefully, but as far as i can tell its about as thorough as going on a porn site in most states. Just asks for your age then believes whatever you write. Im gonna let my nephew know either way maybe it will spark his interest in linux
6
u/null_not 2d ago
They really need to stop calling it age verification. That isn't what the law in California is doing. It's asking for a DOB (with no verification) to bracket users. Parents should be setting up their kids devices and can put in whatever date gets their kid in the right bracket. Adults set up their own devices and can put in whatever date registers them as over 18. OS devs could also just make over 18 a checkbox.
Actual age verification, where some random third party company has a mandate to collect your ID and verify your age is invasive. That isn't what this is and I wish people would stop panicking about it.
→ More replies (1)11
u/BoardroomStroke 2d ago
It's great in principle, but given how horrible the world is I suspect that Linux as an OS will be disallowed from things that need an age limit. I don't like it, but I think something like that will happen as Linux gains market share. If it's possible to for MS to put services in a walled garden, they will do their damned best to.
What should accompany this a ruling that exempts exclusion. If you're accessing using a compatible OS, then fine, apply the rules, but I think there will be some effort from MS to disallow Linux browsing under "incompatibility", just like the IE4 browser wars.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)2
u/porcomaster 2d ago
I am agains't some laws on California such as the ones they are trying to pass on 3d printer.
But I would be more open if those laws just applied to close source projects.
And any project that do not want to be subjected to this type of law needs to be full open source that could seriously bring a lot of positivity to society.
→ More replies (1)
867
u/jimbobmcgoo 3d ago
Pretty awesome, hopefully this sets an alright precedent for other areas
171
u/tycraft2001 3d ago edited 3d ago
Illinois specifically *INCLUDED* Linux in a recent bill.
Edit: My memory was foggy, they didn't. They merely include NO definition as to what an operating system provider is, which is very hard to define for Linux, and do not exempt FOSS as California has.31
u/_Super_Straight 3d ago
What did that bill say?
72
u/tycraft2001 3d ago
Apologies, I misremembered. https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=3977&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=167475&SessionID=114
The bill makes no reference to FOSS however makes references for operating system providers which are near impossible to define for Linux since anybody can provide for themselves or argue they are the provider or somebody else is. Other laws either defined or exempted FOSS.
Apologies for the confusion.
24
u/bankinu 3d ago
Weird Mandela effect... I also thought they did include Linux. I had to check the bill following your link again, to see that they did not.
9
u/tycraft2001 3d ago
I recall somewhere seeing they specifically mentioned open source. Not sure if that was just wrong.
2
u/hardolaf 2d ago
They didn't exempt Linux, but it also only requires a signal which must be settable by the owner or administrator of the machine not by a third party. So technically every distribution could just set it to 18+ by default for the first user account and be fine.
6
u/kudlitan 3d ago
I wonder if doing that could somehow be in violation of software freedom guaranteed in the license, like the right to do anything with the software? perhaps a lawsuit can clarify that.
3
u/No_Signal417 2d ago
Legislation takes precedence over contracts
→ More replies (1)7
u/kudlitan 2d ago
But legislation is valid only in a particular place though. Why would I have to be affected by changes to the software limiting what I can do, just because a certain US state (Illinois as mentioned in the above comment) with a tiny population of only 12 million people (that's just the capital city in my country) legislated changes in software? That would be problematic if multiply countries had conflicting legislation on what the software it should contain. Legislation in Illinois should not affect me. Or else I should be able to sue Ubuntu for limiting my rights stated in the open source contract I agreed to.
→ More replies (1)5
u/No_Signal417 2d ago
The software developers could choose to region-lock the age verification, or they could choose to not bother. You'd have no recorse other than forking the codebase.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Several-Pangolin3119 3d ago
Why not just delete the misinformation comment?
17
5
u/tycraft2001 2d ago
Better to own up for it, some other people already replied. I don't like seeing deleted Reddit comments myself.
2
7
u/bionicjoey 2d ago
Kinda awesome, but I don't love carve-outs in a law that shouldn't even exist in the first place
395
u/Woodpecker-Visible 3d ago
press f for Freedom
36
u/markuspeloquin 2d ago
This would have been a good time to have a chain of 'F' replies, but the Linux auto admin hates us
12
u/RandomPantsAppear 2d ago
😅 I just got a comment removed elsewhere for cussing about nvidia drivers, which I think is a very Linux issue thing to do.
2
40
6
→ More replies (3)5
58
u/Bearded_Pip 2d ago
I’d rather there was no law like this instead of there being an exemption to it.
6
u/anto77_butt_kinkier 2d ago
Ideally there would be no law, but that's not what we're going to get. This is the best outcome that could reasonably be expected. We all know this law isn't going away, the best we could hope for was that there would be an exemption/loophole/carve out.
11
u/Bearded_Pip 2d ago
We should still fight the bill like hell. We don’t have to just surrender.
→ More replies (1)4
114
u/MooseBoys 3d ago edited 2d ago
I'm curious how this doesn't give an out for every OS regardless of source availability. Obviously GPL wouldn't work, but in theory there's nothing stopping e.g. Apple from implementing non-verifying user onboarding code, labeling the code as MIT, building the MacOS image binaries, and simply not publishing the source. This is compliant with MIT and also apparently compliant with the new exemption.
Edit: I don't think the author of the screenshotted article is actually accurate. From the article:
> These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.” Any software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses satisfies that test...
And the ACTUAL TEXT of the law:
> 2) “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that plain language requirement is only satisfied if (1) the whole OS or application is licensed that way (not just the module that implements it) and (2) the whole OS or application must be distributable and modifiable. To me that implies not only an open license but also source distribution. So no, it does not seem to provide an easy out for Apple etc.
35
u/Taldoesgarbage 2d ago
Don't the vast majority of Linux distributions contain, to some degree, proprietary software? Like, for instance, many drivers are still unfortunately proprietary.
Edit: I'm not saying this as a bad thing, it is what it is, but wouldn't that also mean the vast majority of Linux distros aren't exempt?
29
u/IAmNotStan 2d ago
You could go the Debian way and only ship open source models in the ISO, with the option to load closed source models later. Or just automatically fetch them through the installer if internet is available.
→ More replies (1)16
3
u/Substantial-Flow9244 2d ago
As simple as not including them with your distro, if they're part of the kernel I'd believe they're open sourced enough
2
u/friendlyreminder_ 2d ago
The only widespread use proprietary driver was the Nvidia driver, but it's open source now.
Firmware for a very long list of devices however continues to be proprietary.
14
u/DoctorWaluigiTime 2d ago
I'm just trying to piece together why OSS gets an exemption in the first place.
Kind of flies in the face of all the pearl-clutching around the "think of the children" defense.
→ More replies (1)6
u/WorBlux 2d ago
"These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.
Reading between the lines, it's because they know it's unenforceable when a distributor does not limit modifications.
The real root of the problem is that Meta lawyer intentional drafted the law hoping it would be passed in a hurry based on vibes alone, and then later overturned in part, except for the part that granted social media companies liability protections. The pearl-clutching is just fear of the political optics and not anything that genuine by the legislators.
If the law were properly drafted it wouldn't used broad and vague terms like OS and application store, but would have already narrowed it down to functional control, and narrowed it to age-sensitive context.
The law should have laid out a few basic categories of age-sensitive material, and then passed the job to bureau XY, who shall maintain and publish any further age guidelines as may prove necessary for the health and safety of teens online.
Wherever your age-sensitive software or information service is provided in a way that involves differentiation to a single user (person, account, or presumed single-user device), it is the responsibility of the provider to make a determination of age.
Providers of age-sensitive software and information may rely upon an age signal of a hardware device, application store or OS if either - 1. An agent thereof certifies they have examined in-person the user's ID within the past 90 days, or 2. by any reasonably effective process which has been submitted to and approved by bureau XY (approvals to be valid for 2 years) - and they do not ignore information that is contrary to the provided signal.
17
u/primalbluewolf 3d ago
For one, it would mean you could redistribute MacOS as-is or with modifications, and Apple couldn't go after you for infringing their copyright.
8
u/MooseBoys 2d ago edited 2d ago
That's not true at all. Neither MIT nor BSD are copy-left. You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products. The only requirement is that a notice is included with the released software. Including something like this in the About page would be sufficient:
SOFTWARE LICENSES:
apple-siri: All Rights Reserved
apple-adduser: MIT
openssh: BSD-2-0
...You are correct that if Apple ever released the source for the component then people could reuse or re-release that code themselves (subject to the license), but realistically they would put as little code as necessary in such a module. Probably by defining something like
// returns an entitlement by presenting the user with various age verification prompts, otherwise returns an error
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle);And then just implementing the MIT module as:
// Copyright Apple, licensed under MIT
result<Entitlement> GetUserAgeEntitlement(UIHandle) { return err(UNSUPPORTED); }
// end of file16
u/primalbluewolf 2d ago
You can include components with those licenses in entirely closed-source proprietary products.
Sure, but then the OS isn't MIT licensed, and thus they aren't exempt. In the context above, you asked why wouldn't they just relicensed to MIT and withold the source. That's why not.
2
u/we_come_at_night 3d ago
yeah, but mac is, and never will be, an open source OS and will never be licensed as such. It's not the license of the age check program/applet that matters here :)
57
u/xSkyLinedx 2d ago
This nonsense needs to go away entirely. Meta needs to shut up, sit down, and put their little psychopath in timeout.
22
187
u/WarSt0mp 3d ago
How were they even going to enforce it on free distros? It would of just proven how dumb their law is in the first place.
48
125
u/ImNotABotScoutsHonor 3d ago
It would have* proven...
OR
It would've* proven...
57
36
u/YankeeLimaVictor 2d ago edited 2d ago
The "would of" and "should of" disease is getting out of control. I have no idea where this came from, but I've been seeing it everywhere lately, especially on Facebook...
2
2
u/peakdistrikt 2d ago
Ethics???
6
u/Avanchnzel 2d ago
I think that was supposed to be "this", but they fatfingered it and it was automatically corrected to "ethics". 😄
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/ungoogleable 2d ago edited 2d ago
If you learn English as a child like a native speaker, hearing it before you learn to read or write, "would of" and "would've" sound basically the same. Your brain assumes there is one word, "uv". (E.g. in "I would uv done it but I didn't think uv it" your brain processes these as the same word.)
It is only later when you go to school that you have to learn to spell "uv" differently in different situations. This takes effort to counter your native language skills that are wired deep in your brain from infancy. In many people this lesson never fully took so if they're not thinking hard about their word choice they just write what comes naturally.
3
13
u/Misicks0349 3d ago
If you distribute a distro that doesn't have age verification technology in that state you would be fined. That includes online distribution.
15
u/cyberSpaceRacerTech2 2d ago
Unless they aren't from the United States. Trying to fine individuals from another country can get pretty tricky what with international laws and what not.
7
14
u/skossa 2d ago
Ten just put in the license agreement for the website (not the distro) that you are not allowed to download the distro if you reside in any of the interested jurisdictions as the software you are about to download is non law compliant. Then it is the user that is breaching the agreement, not the distributor. MidnightBSD actually went down that rout iirc.
→ More replies (4)2
u/edman007 2d ago
I honestly don't even think that's the biggest problem. I actually think this can be implemented on Linux.
The issue is the assumption that a user sits in front of the computer you're using. Applying these laws to headless units, business owned computers and such gets complicated. Does a pornhub server need to scan a drivers license to boot? What about a router, are it's users the admin or the people sending traffic? Does a movie theater projector need to refuse to operate if it determines the operator is 17 and the movie is rated R? What about my calculator, does Texas instruments need to implement age verification on the calculator in case my BASIC program is rated 18+?
And then the California law says it's illegal to share the age with a website that doesn't have a need to know, but it's mandatory to share it with a website that offers app downloads, nobody has any API for that, and they haven't addressed how it can be abused. You also have the problem that the way it's worded, a parent can't tell their 16 year old they are limited content rated for under 13 since the SW is required to follow the most accurate answer, not the one dictated by parents of guardians. S
75
u/Green_Ad5186 3d ago
the second windows requires me to set my age using an id card im switching to linux.
51
u/Sheeplessknight 3d ago
The bill actually doesn't require an ID (yet) just to declare it as OS setup time
→ More replies (5)23
u/Snow-Ball-486 2d ago
ah yes kids wont find a way around that
26
u/demcookies_ 2d ago
They're implementing it in small chunks; in a few years you can't access computer or internet without giving a dna sample
12
u/scaryjobob 2d ago
The problem is less about the age verification, and the APIs and standards created to support it. Once the APIs are built to use your age, suddenly 'name', 'address', 'DL#', 'Hardware ID', are just new fields added on.
10
u/DesiOtaku 2d ago
The whole point of the law is to prevent future lawsuits against Meta. Meta was the one pushing for this law because they want to pass the buck to operating systems rather than themselves.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Lagger625 2d ago
They're testing the waters, seeing how compliant people would be, then they go full 1984
11
9
→ More replies (1)14
16
u/fellipec 2d ago
Imagining the face of the bootlickers that rushed to implement that in the first week.
26
u/Sea-Housing-3435 2d ago
This is still pretty bad. This will cause certain services to start blocking linux even more than now because "the age cant be verified". There eventually will have to be a service that will fake whatever age verification apis that will be created.
34
u/Autobotnate 3d ago
It feels good to have a win.
10
u/donnysaysvacuum 2d ago
Eh, this could mean that websites or services have an excuse to block Linux now. I don't think it's a win.
5
3
u/wanze 1d ago
May not be the websites having an excuse, but lawmakers forcing them.
If you want to access PornHub on a Linux machine, and PornHub becomes required to verify a user is 18+, they will have to block Linux users or require them to do age verification in some other way.
This exemption doesn't mean that the OS API implementing this should return "exempt" instead of an age braceket, and thus always let everybody in. The law could end up just forcing sites to lock out Linux users.
3
7
9
u/SheriffBartholomew 2d ago
I think you guys are missing the bigger picture here. Like, yay? But they're thinking about servers, not personal OS. If websites still implement this bullshit OS age verification check, and it's mandatory, then Linux OS desktop users will just be locked out of the majority of the internet. This is a tiny win with major implications for overall loss. The entire bill needs to be stopped, not just slightly changed. This is a loophole for their big donors like Amazon, not a consideration for people like us.
22
u/TampaPowers 3d ago
That's one way to force Microslop to release source code I guess >:D /s
4
u/Epistaxis 2d ago
Why would the company that's enshittifying its OS into an advertising platform want to protect its users' privacy?
23
u/Impressive_Bag_3505 3d ago
"Age bracket data" means non-personally identifiable data
So shady. They'll ask for ID to confirm the user's birth date or age, you'll see.
18
u/Skulder 3d ago
Denmark has just started rolling out an anonymous age verification tool, that even works offline.
Reading about it was amazing. Maths and logic can do amazing, counterintuitive things, when needed. It turns out, it is actually possible to do those things.
I'm not very excited about the actual tool, though, and I'm not wholly convinced that the finished software actually makes use of all of the initiatives to protect anonymity - too many of our parliamentarians love surveillance too much to let this opportunity pass.
12
u/necrophcodr 3d ago
It requires online connectivity to set up as expected though, so it can indeed work offline but you do have to register using your citizen digital ID first.
8
u/Beaverman 2d ago
Correct, the basic structure is that you prove identity to your government (who you hopefully trust), and they then mint you a general proof of age bracket. This general proof you can show to people you don't trust, since it doesn't identify you, only that you've identified yourself with your government.
6
u/stewsters 2d ago
identity to your government (who you hopefully trust)
As a person from the US, have you seen our government recently? I would trust them the least.
5
u/gamingx47 2d ago
Pretty sure some tween DOGE douche has my social security number and ID, so at least it can't get any worse right?
4
u/allocallocalloc 2d ago
Yet, the source code is... where?
(For those wondering, it's partially here.)
3
u/LucaV90 3d ago
Where can I read about that tool?
7
u/Skulder 3d ago
All news are in Danish, unfortunately, but translation services are easy.
Official statement from the government: https://digst.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2026/juni/nu-kan-du-downloade-altid/
A random article, paywalled, from our most tech-inquisitive news media: https://www.version2.dk/artikel/ekspert-tvivler-paa-altid-hvem-skal-overhovedet-bruge-appen
The name of the app is "AltID (meaning both "everything- ID"and "forever")
4
u/Beaverman 2d ago
I find that the government is usually pretty decent at writing some english language descriptions as well. That happens to be the case here as well.
https://en.digst.dk/systems/altid/about-altid/
It's worth noting that it's supposedly based on the EU standard that's supposed to roll out over the coming years.
→ More replies (1)7
u/davedcne 3d ago
They want to do face scans using ai to guess your age. That's what they mean. Who needs an ID when you can build a database of people's faces.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/Apart_Security8614 2d ago
Shit ass government overreach laws shouldn't be passing at all in the first place
4
u/Chromiell 3d ago
What about the other dozen of states that wanted to implement the same law? It's good that 2 states are doing this but there was half of the US discussing a similar law plus Brazil and some other states as well following closely.
4
u/mikesum32 2d ago
This will probably make the law unconstitutional. The exemption was seemingly made with a small group of people or a guy in a basement in mind, but Microsoft or Apple will question the competitional disadvantage to the big Linux companies like IBM and Canonical.
If we're lucky, maybe the whole thing will be thrown out.
4
u/semiquaver 2d ago
These amendments redefine the term “operating system provider” to exclude any person or entity that distributes an OS or application “under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.”
Funniest timeline would see Microsoft open source windows as a result.
4
4
u/_twrecks_ 2d ago
Forgive my ignorance, but what happens then when a site needs age verification and the OS can't provide it? Does that preclude using Linux?
3
u/davedcne 3d ago
A good start, but not good enough. Any law like this should be fought tooth and nail. It is not the responsibility of OS devs to police the behavior of users. Nor the companies that create those OS to retain, validate, verify or otherwise transmit any kind of age/demographic data about its users. Fuuuuuuck that.
3
u/JunkoKumaki 2d ago
It's like people forgot the saying "None of us are free until all of us are free." I don't just want to protect myself but also everyone else. And we know that over time this exemption will be removed. The only way to stop this is to not let them get a foot in the door.
3
u/dcheesi 2d ago
The other side of this is the sites that are expected to use this mechanism to enforce the restrictions. What happens when they encounter an OS that doesn't provide the appropriate mechanism?
Can they default to allowing access, or do they end up having to block all OSS OS clients just to be safe? The latter could be true even if the laws don't explicitly state it, depending on how any relevant "safe harbor" provisions are worded or interpreted.
3
3
3
3
4
u/OkYak9466 2d ago
California is going to have a hard time passing these ultra-facist laws but Im glad at least they realized trying to control Linux was never going to happen
2
u/gnimsh 3d ago
A Google search tells me android is licensed under both gpl and Apache. Does this mean it is also exempt?
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/vaynefox 3d ago
That also means that Android will also be exempted to it. Pretty much android users dodge that age verification law. If google ask it that's gonna be questionable....
3
u/Jedibeeftrix 2d ago
there's not much of android these days that isn't a proprietry google service outside aosp.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/makinax300 2d ago
WE'RE SO FUCKING BACK. Also afaik that law wasn't verification. It just trusted you to say the truth.
2
2
1
u/synack 3d ago
So Chromebooks are cool now?
5
u/veloxVolpes 3d ago
Chromebooks were always cool. They're still dumb though. They are both
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
4
2
2
2
u/SamiSapphic 2d ago
The problem I have with this is the whole idea of an "age token" thing, if that's still the plan.
Websites might only allow access to users with the presence of such a token, and if Linux users lack one altogether, then we might start being shut out.
2
u/tallgrasshead 2d ago
Yeah I don't see how the vast number of infrastructure devices would implement this. "Sorry your routers and switches are not working, but there's nowhere to insert my driver's license in order for me to fix them"
2
u/frostphantom 3d ago
so... the kids will flock to Linux just to watch porn ?
3
u/we_come_at_night 2d ago
It's a "in good faith" questionnaire that's being implemented, no verification.
3
u/SeaNational3797 2d ago
And in doing so, they will have to learn a thing or two about computers (as a former cs teacher…yay!!!)
1
u/Artichoke808 2d ago
They'll circle back and change it once they've fortified their recently acquired territory. Land of the.
1
u/timtim2000 2d ago
Well forcing means you are getting a full blown opensource driven internet that the rich and big company's wont be able to touch.
1
1
1
u/AvidCyclist250 2d ago
How did that happen? No, seriously. Something big went on there. Wins like this don't come easily, let alone by themselves.
1
1
1
u/thesmallterror 2d ago
They tactfully excluded the vocal minority from their mandate. The vast majority of people will still be sending their age and PII to every website they visit.
1
1
u/Hour_Bit_5183 2d ago
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\........................./´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
1
1
u/lelddit97 2d ago
I don't mean to be that guy but this was obviously going to happen. Not excluding was an oversight. This is the most technical state in the USA - all of big tech is here with hundreds of thousands of engineers (>500k software engineers IIRC).
1
u/Jean_Luc_Lesmouches 2d ago
This is stupid. All that law requires is for you to more or less swear "I'm an adult installing this OS and that account is for an adult" and for websites to trust your word. Instead we're stuck with the current situation of parental control trying to wedge itself between you and your OS, or IA/ID control by websites. GAFAM pushed for it not to get more info (free OS aren't going to talk to them anyway), but because they don't want to be held responsible for enforcing age restrictions.
1
u/cheat117 2d ago
Unfortunately, this does pave away for the big tech companies to just say oh well. We're using open source under the hood, so we're exempt, but I am happy that the operating systems themselves are exempted, which is nice
1
1
u/gwillen 2d ago
Are the freedesktop/gnome/systemd people going to walk back the age-verification crap they've already put in? Or are they going to declare it a sunk cost, and figure we all might as well live with it now, and keep pushing it?
EDIT: looks like actually the systemd proposal is the only one that actually made it in; there are/were others at various stages of progress.
→ More replies (1)2
1
u/JB231102 2d ago
Perhaps this went into their decision, it just occurred to me while reading the post that IF an ID check were implemented into Linux that would also most likely include commercial servers, you know, the data centers that hold a shit load of internet information? How in the hell would that work? Would the server admin's have to provide their ID's? (shrug)
1
1
u/niccolus 2d ago
I think this should also be used a moment to point out that laws are not perfect but can be improved when we get involved in the system. Sometimes it can feel like nothing changes. But that just means we need more voices and to make the right people aware.
1
1
u/HuttonWilliam 2d ago
Yes very good, hopefully this gets more people interested in open source software.
1
u/gathanes 2d ago
California's government is kind of coping with this one. It's basically impossible to enforce what they were hoping to with open source software, let alone something as branched out as the Linux kernel. This is them just giving up on trying to.
1
1
1
1
u/CopiousAmountsofJizz 2d ago
Sugar coated turd of a law. They only passed it to keep it from being absurd and broken.
1
u/DistantRavioli 2d ago
Imaging thinking this is a win somehow. This bill having passed at all is a huge fucking loss for society. It doesn't matter if a tiny percentage of people are going to be temporarily exempt when services start just blocking any machines that aren't "verified" nor does it even come close to overriding the intended future consequences of this kind of framework.
1
1
u/SweetEbb9819 2d ago
Good way to single out linux as websites and apps start demanding age verification.
Anyways, it'll backfire
1
1
u/summer_plays_ 2d ago
Switching to Linux tomorrow. I can play Siege on my Xbox anyways.
-CA resident
1
1
1
u/khegobier 1d ago
The fact that this would be the exception and not the rule makes it still be an affront to one’s rights.
1
u/Bells_DX 1d ago
Forced Identification laws should be rejected wholesale. At best it creates another vector for criminals to target so they can steal all your info. At worst, it allows the government to start tracking who says what, so they can start targetting people who say things the government doesn't like.
•
u/chic_luke 2d ago
Source article link