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

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

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 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.

      • Digit@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yep.

        Plenty bad reasons though.

        Mostly around abuse of the vulnerable, data-mining, advertising/marketing/psyops/publicrelations, pedophilia, pedovoria, disempowerment, indoctrination, dumbing-down, wealth extraction maximisation, profiling, voter suppression, gerrymandering, insurance scams, etc.

        Still struggling to conceive of even a single good reason…

        … So it helps us detect the crooked politicians who would vote for such a thing?

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 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
          ·
          14 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
        ·
        15 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
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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.