no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
4 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
[–] 6 points 3 months ago*

No.

[Edit] Actually, I take that back. If all data collection services in the USA can go 5 years without one single data leak, I'll consider it.

Prove yourself worthy.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    This feels less like "protecting children" and more like pedophiles inventing a way to find more children to harm. Parents need to parent. Platforms need to moderate, with sane humans, not AI or stupid age gate laws that anyone under 18 can bypass.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    from henceforth all the children that i may or may not have were born on Janurary 1st 1970

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Weird how the way to protect children involves grabbing everyone’s ID instead of regulating social media.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/illinois@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 2 points 3 months ago
    [–] -5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    we sure are getting close to someone's wet dream of having a dystopian hellscape where people don't have control over their computers

    I'm interpreting the opposite. Currently, if I want my kid's user account flagged as belonging to a minor, I don't have that option. If I want my kid's user account treated differently online, I don't have that option. This bill gives me that option, and it gives me the option of turning it off if I feel like it, and it doesn't require me to provide any personal information to achieve that outcome.

    I agree that exceptions should be made for open-source. But overall, this seems way less invasive than EU or UK age verification.

    So, what am I missing? This is the same asshole that wants every round of ammo to have a serial number, so I know better than to expect reasonable and well-thought-out legislation from this administration.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    I agree that exceptions should be made for open-source.

    The exceptions shouldn't be made for "open source" (which would require a legal definition of that), but for operating systems that aren't preinstalled on devices.

    I haven't read the exact wording of this bill yet, but if it includes all operating systems, then that would seem to prohibit distributing vintage operating systems from before anyone had this idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • 2 comments in c/privacy@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)