• arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    31 minutes ago

    That would be a completely unworkable law since devices may not even have internet connectivity, or a user interface. And even if they did, it would have a chilling effect on software development in California.

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The Californian law only affects California.

      Individual OS vendors might decide to implement it in a way that affects other places as well, e.g. in the past, Valve decided they’d rather not implement age verification for Germany and just stopped selling all porn / super violent games in Germany. Maybe they’ll now implement it for Germany and California.

    • PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Probably only Californians. Or at least IPs out of California.

      For example, PornHub (Canadian company) is completely open to me, being Canadian. But if my VPN puts me in a state that has banned porn (Virginia for example), the site don’t let me on.

      I’m sure it’s much like that. If you are in California or your IP is based out of it, the OS will require age verification.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    You guys are asking the wrong questions.

    How is Linux going to do this? There’s no server for the os to send the information to report the age of its users, no way of forcing its user base to comply and no single person or entity to fine, arrest or otherwise force into compliance.

    They made a law they cannot enforce.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      How is Linux going to do this? There’s no server for the os to send the information to report the age of its users

      The law doesn’t require sending the data anywhere, so that’s not a problem.

      no way of forcing its user base to comply and no single person or entity to fine, arrest or otherwise force into compliance.

      The law doesn’t require anything of users, it requires something of OS providers. OS providers have addresses and entities to fine.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 hour ago

        The law doesn’t require anything of users, it requires something of OS providers.

        For a FOSS OS, any user with root access would be considered an “OS Provider” under the definitions provided in this law. With FOSS, there is no real distinction between “user” and “developer”.

        • dev_null@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 minutes ago

          You are right, it just says whoever “controls the OS”, which is very vague. Even without going to open source, a user still controls the OS even on Windows or macOS. To a lesser degree of course, but in the same way a driver controls a car even if they can’t or won’t try to modify it.

    • Spesknight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      What if banning Linux is part of the Agenda? And what will they do for the servers? I am declaring my pc a server as of right now…

      • yabbadabaddon@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        How do you want to do this? Linux is a kernel the world relies on. It powers your car, your fridge, your satellite, your phone, the entire Internet, the army, etc. Nothing comes close to Linux in market share. The distros are built upon the kernel. System76 may have to comply, but the other maintainers don’t give a flying fuck. They could even write a small line somewhere on their repo that says “this distro is not allowed in California” and call it a day.

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Which is why we all should aspire to join linux, and reject newsome and other greasy california politicians cynically playing us for the billionaires.

    • Liketearsinrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      From what I understood, it’s a requirement for a local API (for apps to use) and could be implemented during user creation.

      It will be a slippery slope and IANAL, just my interpretation.

  • emmy67@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    No doubt in response to Europe making its choice for software open source. Expect targeted attacks on FOSS to increase

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Our president is fucking children, and you’re telling me I gotta verify my date of birth to run Linux, in the name of “Protecting the Children”?

    Get the fuck outta here.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      48 minutes ago

      Even entering DoB is imo too much of a privacy breach. In my view, they should just take the highest age bracket described, apparently 18+, and then ask that on OS installation: “Are you over the age of 18?” If the user says yes, it installs, and every app is hardcoded to receive that 18+ bracket when checking demographic. If they say no, then it simply replies that users under 18 may not install it under the laws of California.

    • bearboiblake@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Basically, it’ll become a crime to sell a computer with a pre-installed operating system unless it supports an age assurance system.

      • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        You make it sounds like a good thing; people will wont have microslops os by default… they may pick loonix!!! (this comment is brought to you by me)

        Wait im dumb miceoslip WILL HAVE AGE ASSURANCE!!! GET out everyone will you can

  • wuffah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks.

    What even is the point of this then? To make shitty parents feel better?

    • Archr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The point of it is actually the exact opposite. With this law the parent would set the age of their child. And if they decide to lie and their child is affected then they could be fined.

      The other thing it does is if a platform decides to ignore the age range of a user and it affects a child then they could be fined. But as long as they do best effort then it really only affects the parents.

      It also prevent platforms from requesting additional ID verification unless they have confidence that the age bracket of that user is incorrect.

      • Virtvirt588@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        There is absolutely no reason for an OS to know a users age. At this point it is certain that they can escalate this into including gender or even race.

        The children or even the teens have no meaning in this law - they are simply used as sugarcoating for the cyanide pill that’s aimed at the populace.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I agree until this law there was no reason for my os to know my age. This law creates that reason.

          Any law can be bad if we take into account the imagined future possibilities. Should we outlaw electricity because it might be used in some way to make nukes?

          If lawmakers try to issue further requirements for ID or facial scans then we can fight that. But until then there is nothing in this law that affects me outside of needing to enter a number less than 2005 when I setup my OS.

          If you don’t have any kids then you literally can’t be fined under this law.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            42 minutes ago

            If your code is installed on a general purpose computing device that is provided to a child, you can be fined.

            If you provide code to the general public without requesting an age signal from the receiver’s OS, you can be fined.

            The attorney general of California might consider the JavaScript in your web page to be “content”. They might consider it to be an “application”. There is no clear distinction. If you request an age signal before providing content, you can be fined. If you fail to request an age signal before providing an application, you can be fined.

            The more I read about this law, the less I think it will actually go into effect. It’s going to face a whole series of injunctions. The lawyers are going to bill thousands of hours, but the whole thing is going to be scrapped.

      • bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        53 minutes ago

        IRL Community is dead in america, They know the only thing we have left to band together on against their Nazi regime is the internet. This is why they are trying to destroy anonymity.

        Soon it will be “Linux is for criminals” (like they said with graphene).

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    OK Newsom, you’ve lost me. I enjoyed your chaotic responses to the drumpf but you’ve officially lost me.

    • treesquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      14 hours ago

      He’s not even making most of those responses to Trump. His social media manager is doing it. He’s still just another Howard Schultz. “I like the idea of equality as long as rich people don’t have to reduce the rate at which they become richer.”

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Realize, this has always been him. He is NOT a liberal. He is a conservative who calls himself a democrat.

        • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Government-mandated age verification stuff on private hardware is basically the opposite of liberal though

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Those who call themselves liberal have been doing shit like this for so long that this rank hypocrisy is part of what it means to be liberal.

            If liberals don’t like it, they should have had some integrity instead of ridiculing the concept as a “purity test.”

      • Auth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        16 hours ago

        He is still overwhelmingly liberal and progressive. Calling him conservative is insane.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          16 hours ago

          He is basically as conservative as you can be here in California while holding a state wide elected position and even that may not be true anymore with how things have shifted since the last governor election. Point is he is generally on the more conservative end of Californian politics, hell I know some Schwarzenegger style conservatives who are more progressive than him.

  • 7101334@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    16 hours ago

    The law does not require photo ID uploads or facial recognition, with users instead simply self-reporting their age, setting AB 1043 apart from similar laws passed in Texas and Utah that require “commercially reasonable” verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks.

    I hate Newsom but this seems like a non-issue.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      If it was a non-issue they wouldn’t introduce this to begin with.

      There’s not a single good reason to why an OS would ever need to know someone’s age.

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        One of the proposed ideas in a Discord-based thread was to use OS-level age authentication to prevent you from having to provide IDs to a thousand other parties. One place, one time. So that’s one reason for an OS to need it, in a world hellbent on increasing age restrictions. I don’t know enough about that idea to argue it, though I’m certain it could be spoofed in 0.2 seconds after release.

        It sounded like the EU solution is a dedicated, non-identifying birth date tag in their passports.

        But what do I know. I assume all age restrictions can be circumvented, so I see no point in all this theater. And it’s theater because it never really seems to truly be about protecting children. At least, to me, I’d be more concerned about SFW manosphere bullshit than NSFW porn when it comes to protecting kids (yes, I’m well aware a great deal of porn is misogynistic, degrading, abusive, etc)

        • forestbeasts@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Man, it’s so weird to think about misogynistic/degrading/abusive porn existing. I’m used to furry porn which, generally, is much more positive “yay let’s do [insert rule 34 of literally anything you could possibly think of] and have a great time!” type stuff.

          – Frost

      • 7101334@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        But you can just lie lol

        That’s what I always did as a kid. Maybe some good reasons not to do that, but that’s still the reality of it.

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      A bad precedent. No concession! Fuck these nihlists! We have freedom of speech, and the supreme court and congress and the executive does not have the authority to take it from us. Fuck them.

  • Noxy@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Despite signing it, Newsom issued a statement urging the legislature to amend the law before its effective date, citing concerns from streaming services and game developers about “complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family member and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”

    then why did you fucking sign it in the first place??

    words cannot describe the depths of my seething hatred for the complete, museum grade, massive piece of shit that is Gavin Newsom

    • BranBucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      Because it’s a metric, a bullet point, and campaign speech fodder. Newsome thinks of his position in terms of a career rather than an office, his job isn’t to lead a nation towards what’s right or wrong, it’s to pander so that he can be re-elected or elected to higher office.

      The bullshit way that lobbying groups conduct polling and market research means they he’s chronically out of touch and that his focus is on perpetuating his time in office so he can continue to “represent the people”, making a calling out of bowing to the desires of the mis-informed, outraged, panicked mob he believes his electorate to be instead of actually having a spine and exercising good judgement.

      The consequences of shoddy legislation take second place to being able to declare he did something to “keep kids safe”. It doesn’t even have to work, all that matters is having something to wave around and back up that claim. Something to placate the plebeians and let him continue to do what he does best… listen to lobbyists who are lying about what people think.

      Why? Because that’s what gets people elected these days. Despite being on a foundation of pure bullshit, somehow it works. So he goes along with it, encourages it, and remains in office as a result.

  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Yes but Newsom says funny things about bad orange man, so he’s got my vote.