California age verification bill gets worse. Amended yesterday.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025

Notably:
(b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from a covered manufacturer when that user requests to download an application.

And in this case, "developer" is distinct from "store" or "covered manufacturer". So it's like they're saying every developer has to do an age check before downloading....anything? But the developer is the one who made the software. How are they going to do a check at download time from the store? What would this even mean for something like installing vim. The vim team has to somehow do a check before apt gives you the package? There's nothing in here indicating there's a way around it, or tying it specifically to adult stuff. It seems to be universal. It's also bizarre because they don't seem to say the developer has to do anything with it. But they have to ask.

This ends up being way WAY more damaging than even the retarded UK stuff that's happening.

>>106014995 (OP)
>>This ends up being way WAY more damaging than even the retarded UK stuff that's happening.

I thought only the yeehaw states were doing that stuff

>>106014995 (OP)
They're being written by retards because retards get elected.

>>106014995 (OP)
>This bill would require, among other things related to age verification on the internet, a covered manufacturer to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store
In an application store you stupid faggot, not every ftp server and repository in existence.

>>106015186

First off, a "covered application store" as defined includes absolutely anything that you can download from. Including things like flathub or an apt repository.

(e) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

But that's not even the point. The point is that -developers- are distinct from the stores. And it is the developer who "shall" request the age verification signal.

(g) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.

>>106015186

>(g) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.

And this means, Corky, that the maintainers of emacs must somehow request age verification before someone downloads it off flathub.

>>106015222
I'll also point out. This bill passed the California house UNANIMOUSLY. And it is now working it's way through the Senate. Retarded or not, this is coming.

>>106014995 (OP)
Get some skills, go rogue, and stop worrying about normie things.

>>106015310
How do you intend to go rogue if you literally cannot download anything because developers have no way of doing a fucking background check before you download their random utility from the AUR?

>>106015199
anything you can download from THAT HAS AN ACCOUNT. I don't have an account for apt repositories.
If you have a login 9 time out of 10 it already asks DOB. The bill just makes 5 age gates to anonymize the data and forces providers to make the data available to 3rd parties that upload their applications to the store.
>>106015222
I don't use flathub, idk if an account is required. If it does and if the bill passes flathub is going to have to collect general age data, make it available to developers, and make part of the download process include a request for the data.
While somewhat pointless it's not nearly the mountain you're making it out to be.

>>106015464
No. The "account" in question is the account on the device/OS.

(a) A covered manufacturer shall do all of the following:
(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

The covered manufacturer is:
Covered manufacturer” means a person who is a manufacturer of a device, an operating system for a device, or a covered application store.

So that means, Windows, MacOS and Linux will be required to ask your age so it can provide the signal. The law very clearly distinguishes between "covered manufacturer", "covered application store", and "developer".

>>106015464
>I don't use flathub, idk if an account is required. If it does and if the bill passes flathub is going to have to collect general age data,

You are wrong. It's the developer that has to do the age check. Not the "covered manufacturer" or the "covered application store". It is completely clear.

>>106015464
>he thinks you need an account to download from flathub
opinion instantly discarded

>>106015513
I don't get it. Are you not capable of reading English? What is the point of ignoring the wording of the law itself? The "account" in question is your device account. That's the entire thrust of the

>“Covered manufacturer” means a person who is a manufacturer of a device, an operating system for a device, or a covered application store.

The use of OR means Windows/Mac/Linux. Setting your age at install time.

>(a) A covered manufacturer shall do all of the following: (1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

Your "account" on your device will provide the age signal. The one who is required to read it, is the developer, not the store. Fucking use your brain, goddamn.

>>106015488
The account could be a windows account or google account sure, it's not making me put an age value on the fucking local postgresql account that gets created when I install postgresql. Neither is "Administrator" when you install windows. Because those aren't online store accounts. Will running sudo apt mean my root account needs to have an age value?
>>106015497
The covered manufacturer does the age check on account creation. The developer just has to request the stored age "signal" on each download. Doesn't need to store it, make it available for anyone else to see, or do anything with it. Just "request" it which means one extra line of javascript when you click download. Hell it doesn't even say prevent download if the age check doesn't work, just fucking request it.
>>106015513
Again, I don't use flathub. I use my standard system package manager the way God intended.

>>106015599
>Again, I don't use flathub. I use my standard system package manager the way God intended.

You're not understanding. It's not the app store (AUR) that has to do the check. It's the developer. Emacs, Gimp, whatever the fuck. The wording is completely clear. The developer is not the store or the "covered manufacturer".

>>106014995 (OP)
The law says
>1798.501. (a) A covered manufacturer shall do all of the following:
>(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications This bill is fucking nuts, because it means ANY account-based-anything ANYWHERE has to verify the user's age if that user can download applications from it.
This would cover things like computer systems. The bill directly calls out "operating system".

>>106015599
>it's not making me put an age value on the fucking local postgresql account that gets created when I install postgresql.

That's right. It's your account on the Linux machine itself. The OS. "an operating system for a device". And if you want to get really apocalyptic, if they choose to interpret this to mean "an age verified by a trusted source" it could mean you need to use a 3rd party service to install Linux itself. The wording right now doesn't seem to indicate that though.

"(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the sole purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store."

This seems to indicate "set your age in a dialog box at setup", with the charitable interpretation being that a parent does this for their kids and the kids can't change it. But the disaster interpretation is "the user can't be trusted. a third party has to do it".

But in either case, the clear language indicates it is the developer, not the app store that has to do the age check supplied by the OS, which is ridiculous and would never work.

>>106015646
>This would cover things like computer systems. The bill directly calls out "operating system".

Yes. The OS has to record the age. But the developer has to request the age at download time. Not the app store. The developer of the app. So now your OS has to request your age and the developer (emacs, vim, etc) somehow has to request the signal at download time. It's insane.

>>106015675
>But in either case, the clear language indicates it is the developer, not the app store that has to do the age check supplied by the OS, which is ridiculous and would never work.
This is the part that really got me, because developers who use app stores don't really have control over things once they're in the store. Its all on Apple or Google to implement, because developers don't serve the application for download, so they'll never see a user's signal. That's all going to be Apple or Google. The system, as presented in the law, does not work with reality.

>>106015675
Considering this is pushed at the same time as the uk and australia stuff, that highly indicates theyre related.

Which also means the disaster situation is what theyre aiming for.

>>106015702
The bill is clearly written by people who don't understand how app stores work. They think the dirty evil developers aren't checking people's age, but its all down to whether Google Play or Apple Store does that, because they host the app and are responsible for delivery once you hit download.
Do these fucking idiots actually think Apple Store is connecting to some random third party developer's server to ask for a download?

>>106015726
This is very highly related to the recent disaster of a Supreme Court case that allowed age verification for porn websites.
Now they're using age verification and spreading it all over the fucking place, when its a clear attack on our rights.

>>106015705

Yes. It's unsettling because the language before the amendment today was of the effect "well, you have to do it depending on the impact of kids possibly using your software, blah blah". This left you the out of "my text editor is fine for kids, I have to do nothing". But now it simply says "shall" with no qualifiers. If implemented literally, this would mean the only software that you could reasonably distribute would come from huge companies that could afford to run some per-download check.

If you work at a tech company, seriously, get on Slack tomorrow and spread that word that this is fucking crazy. Legislators will respond to pushback from actual companies, not retards on 4chan. The amendment happened on Wednesday.

>>106015743
I don't think so. This originally got filed in February. It's coordinated, but not to that level. The way I read it, it's liberals saying "well, we'll just provide a truly private way to do age verification so that we don't look like dumb idiots from Texas.". But not realizing what they're proposing is far more disastrous.

>>106015753
To be fair to the process, this was in the House and I wonder, if the California Senate is anything like the US Senate, whether they'd be more prudent examining it after this amendment.
But yes, still, every developer needs to raise hell about this because it would destroy all but the most corporate centralized software. Its funny, because this bill is clearly targeting centralized app stores but in doing so it quite literally drags all computers, app repos, and virtually most of the internet into it.

>>106015761
Also, it's coordinated across blue states. Illinois had a version of this go by this year, but it never got to a vote. It comes from here

https://www.icmec.org/daaa/

>>106015779
It seemed to slow down in the Senate. 2 months of no action. But this week, boom, it got amended like this and sent to whatever the fuck committee.

The really high level view here is, liberals want to be seen as pushing the 'nice' version of the hard verification requirements showing up in red states. But what they have ends up being much more awful. Literally cannot even use an OS without entering your age.

Worth pointing out: Microsoft loves shit like this because it gives them ammo for "well, you have to make a Microsoft account of course!".

>>106015790
I have a seething rage for all these "but muh chilluns!" fuckers. There are so many parent settings available on phones and laptops, even fucking routers, and yet we've reached the point where we have to force the entire internet and developer space into age verification paradigms because these stupid FUCKS can't just slap a pin on the phone.

>>106015812
>Worth pointing out: Microsoft loves shit like this because it gives them ammo for "well, you have to make a Microsoft account of course!".
Yeah, I was going to say, we can't rely on large corporate developers to want to stop this because they LOVE forcing everyone into accounts from the get-go.

>>106015623
Guess where the "developer" request the data from? The app store. So the app store is the one that really does the check on account creation, then the "devs" have to make requesting the data part of the download process.
By "The bill would require a developer to request a signal" they mean each download has to have that age data included in the download metadata. The app store does that, no developer is manually approving downloads.
It's weirdly worded but it's a nothingburger.
>>106015675
You never answered the question, what age do I give my root account? There's no dialog box for that. There's no dialog box for the local administrator on windows. No dialog for my router admin user.
They are talking about SaaS accounts not every uid/gid pair in existance. Most SaaS request age for accounts anyway, this bill just forces anonymized formatting of the age and each download to have an attached age value.

>>106015849
>You never answered the question, what age do I give my root account? There's no dialog box for that. There's no dialog box for the local administrator on windows. No dialog for my router admin user.
>They are talking about SaaS accounts not every uid/gid pair in existance. Most SaaS request age for accounts anyway, this bill just forces anonymized formatting of the age and each download to have an attached age value.

As worded today, it absolutely seems that any desktop-like environment will have to ask for an age at setup time. The language is light enough that it does seem like simply popping up a dialog box and saying "enter user age" would be enough. But, it is also extremely easy to imagine various interests saying "well, that's not really secure/trustworthy. The only real way to do this is with a full chain-of-trust system verified by a third party and stored on a TPM". Which would then mean: secure boot mandatory and all sorts of the same bullshit that comes with remote attestation. That annihilates most of the Linux world. That's the disaster view, but it's not impossible: this tidal wave of digital ID is arriving everywhere in the world this year.

The giant social media conglomerates don't mind because the regulatory burden for them is miniscule and they know it's a burden for what's left of the independent web which they'd like to die out anyway.

>>106015013
Yeehaw legislation basically equates to a tax on big porn sites with local exposure. Commiefornia actually wants to unmask users to local authority so they can haul you in for saying un-PC things like bongland.

The rule of law is rapidly becoming unenforceable. Accelerate.

>>106016010
More than that. They want 100% of everyone yoked. If they go super hard on enforcing this, it ends Linux and open source in general. Nothing but 100% corporate computing in the future. The natural extension here would be: no local hardware either - cloud only goy.

>>106015013
you're getting squeezed from both ends

>>106016018
>The rule of law is rapidly becoming unenforceable

It's enforceable. Can't/won't pay the fines? Legal action is taken against Canonical because they're hosting you on their repos. Canonical has to enforce, but they also are doomed because it'll apply to 99% of the crap needed for Ubuntu.

So what exactly are you supposed to do on the internet after this is all done? Look at ads and nothing else?

>>106016223
Realistically, billions of fucking phone users barely even realize anything happened at all. Everyone else is fucked.

It's being pushed everywhere: EU and Australia are being assraped in similar ways. Age verification as an excuse to erode the last bits of privacy that remain.

Privacy isn't dead, it's being murdered!

>>106014995 (OP)
Karenocracy in practice. Men create heaven for women. Women turn that into hell for men. Every single time.

>>106015702
>the developer (emacs, vim, etc)
So I have to input personal info to use a text editor?

>>106016542
Almost. Not to use it - to download it. But the age info will have to be entered at OS install time, to be provided as necessary.

>>106014995 (OP)
This just means it is time to set up a local pkgsrc mirror. NetBSD has created a portable ports and package manager. Linux, MacOS, BSD, haiku, and most everything else is supported.
It would be trivial to mirror the local source files and build as needed or you can do a bulk build and host your own compiled packages for any OS you use.
source code is not an applicatiob so this b/s shouldn't apply.

>>106014995 (OP)
This doesn't sound like it could hold up in court.

>>106015013

>>106016553
This sounds so stupid, so is on the job of the OS developers to ask for your age? The day Mint tells me I have to give them my picture of my cock is the day I turned into a tranny and go to live in the woods.

>>106016582

It's worse than that. Mint will have to ask you for your age. But then the developers of EVERYTHING ELSE you download, all the packages, etc will have to query that age at download time. Not Flathub. Not the Ubuntu repos. The individual package developers.

>>106016569
American court has no power in Trump era.

>>106015790
God I wish I had a job where I could copy paste text and enact is as the law of the land.

>>106016639
Yep. The inorganic nature of it tells you all you need to know about the inevitability.

Illinois https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/104/SB/10400SB2037.htm

Michigan https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/bill/michigan-sb-284-digital-age-assurance-act/

>>106016590
Most of these developers aren't even located in California, let alone speak English, so California congress thinks they are this powerful to enforce this.

>>106014995 (OP)
usa has the 1st amendment so unless it's some special cast like porn, you can't infringe on it so california's schizo policies are irrelevant

>>106016649
If this were any other state, you'd be right. But California is the seat of big tech. If this passes, it just becomes the default everywhere. Within a year or two, all the blue states, and many of the reds will have the same laws.

>>106014995 (OP)
>text outright states they want a permanent hardware account tied to one's government ID
welp time to kill myself

>>106016659
The strategy they're going for is deliberately picked to be more legally allowable than the Texas stuff, which already just got approved by the Supreme court.

https://www.icmec.org/daaa/

"

The DAAA does not interfere or burden adults’ access to mature content, presents the least restrictive alternative to age verification, does not impede on user privacy, and presents no undue burden on Covered Manufacturers.

The DAAA avoids the constitutional concerns of existing age verification laws, many of which are actively undergoing legal challenges, including in the Supreme Court."

>>106016678
Just stop using corporate/government sites. People will just have to host their own shit and if they avoid http the state will be non the wiser. For these idiots the web is the internet. No one will notice if a few people are on IRC swapping files or hosting files on an sftp server.
They state is well aware of the 80/20 rule. Capturing the normalfags will be sufficient and cheapest way to go.

>>106016700
This is really the only, very slim escape hatch. They just don't enforce it on open source because the numbers are too small. But the threat will always be there.

>>106016700
How would you get IRC or FTP server software without going through a developer? Writing all software yourself?

>>106016712
And actually, I don't even think it works very well, because even if the government doesn't pursue it, you can be sure remote attestation schemes will appear fucking quick, and then Google/Microsoft/Cloudflare will be hard blocking you in an unavoidable way.

>>106016671
But what is the end goal? Wouldn't this make things worse, such as a black market for OS and software? Well, doesn't matter, surely the checks and balance of the government will come into play.

>>106016722
I told you, go download pkgsrc and setup server to compile every package. Now you have all the software you will ever need
Every quarter you can download a new batch of source code and recompile.
Or setup a Debian apt mirror or whatever.

>>106016738
The end goal? Walled gardens everywhere. Captive consumers, datamined and tracked to the nth degree. That's why the corporations will be all for it.

And for the normies, the kids are saved! We're talking about people who spend 8 hours a day watching TV, just like boomers have since the 40s. They don't give a fuck about privacy because there are no physical indications their privacy is being violated.

>>106016679
>more legally allowable
there's no legal justification for age verification of any sort for non-regulated materials and any attempt to inject a requirement like that would be shot down as a 1st amendment infringement, there's no justification that the state needs to know your age and identity for you to download a text editor

also creates undue burden on tech companies, it'd be impossible to use or distribute pretty much any software

>>106016754
>companies

Tech companies will be fine. It kills open source, because randos making random utilities will have no capability to comply.

must be another day in mutt-merica — land of the free speech

>>106016738
>black market for OS and software
psst kid you wanna buy debian?

>>106016763
Source code is a text file not an application and text is protected speech, or so one can argue.
Get used to doing your own compiles. No binaries no problem

>>106016754
>there's no legal justification for age verification of any sort for non-regulated materials and any attempt to inject a requirement like that would be shot down as a 1st amendment infringement, there's no justification that the state needs to know your age and identity for you to download a text editor

You'd hope this would be a case that could be made. But that effect is secondary to the law itself, since the law isn't explicitly aimed at that. It's just a consequence. Would that be enough of a legal justification?

>>106014995 (OP)
1. The law won't be enforced in the short term
2. If the law is enforced, it will destroy things like Debian which would result in a huge loss for the tech industry, chances are there will be legal battles over it for the next decade because of this

in short, nothing ever happens (at least in the short term).

The US is speedrunning toward a social credit system with mass censorship/surveillance, this is one of the first steps on the slippery slope.

Could a Califag e-mail one of the representatives with the text below.

Dear Assemblymember [insert last name here]

In the bill you [introduced, coauthored], the Digital Age Assurance Act, I could not find any information about how source code will be handled versus compiled programs. Would a developer that releases source code only be exempt from this act or are they included as well?

Genuine question, would things be better if Kamala won?

>>106016837
It is vitally important to understand why AI is a huge part of this. Not because AI itself is some magical privacy-violating tool. But because AI is the latest greatest justification for ramping up the constant surveillance on computing devices.

Once everyone gets familiarized with AI, it simply becomes a non-disable-able part of every OS. Windows Recall + Copilot but you can't turn it off. The justification is : "well, that's just how AI works. And we're AI based now. Why are you complaining?". And that's the ballgame.

>>106016844
Don't give them ideas. The more holes the better. If you tell them upfront they will include source code in their bill

>>106016849
Why would think that? This bill is coming out of California. Almost 100% D sponsors and unanimous vote in a D supermajority house.

>>106016871
Why does every political party just wanna fuck me in the ass?

>>106016865
I just wanted to know how fucked we are, but if you are honest in the contact us page as a flyover bumpkin they refuse to accept your message.

>>106016883
Even if they had a carve-out for source code, that doesn't really help. 99% of people, even Linux people, aren't going to compile an entire operating-system worth of software.

Palantir did this

>>106016849
she's literally from California and she's part of the party that owns California with a massive super majority that is pushing this bill

>"Witches aren't rea-"

>>106016919
Just a patsy. Nearly identical bills are moving through all the blue states. Stopped in Illinois this year. MIchigan still ongoing.

>>106015013
red states just don't like porn sites. california wants to own control, and regulate everything. there is a reason why in the united states california has the nickname of commiefonia.

california is literally the state that slaps this can cause cancer on everything. even fish has a cancer warning.

>>106016774
>psst kid you wanna buy debian?
> fuck outta with this weak shit
>give me the good stuff

>>106016902
One should not concern themselves with the normalfags, there is no helping them. As long as you can find little holes for you and those like you things with work out.
Plus you can make money selling them compiled CDs of your software.
How much will a drawfag pay for krita?

>>106016934
Yeah. The last 12 months have really forced me to rethink everything about the world. The last 30 years of my life were just a lucky anomaly in time. The era of actual free computing is over, so I somehow have to figure out how to find happiness in something they can't take away. Either that or finally finish the job by drinking myself to death. Been working on that one for a long time now.

>>106016837
>The US is speedrunning toward a social credit system with mass censorship/surveillance
You know how banks share a list of every transaction you do so as to track how good of a goy you are and will discriminate against you if you aren't a good goy? That'll extend beyond finance in not that long, KYC regulations will be divorced from AML regulations and be generalized for all services.

>>106016926
Its true. Everything in this shithole state has warnings. Look at my chair. Thanks California for telling me that:
>My chair can catch on fire
>Eating my chair can give me cancer
And the fish thing is real. Go into the meat department and there are signs warning that consuming fish is known to cause cancer in the state of California due to "mercury" being in fish.

>>106016902
This would revive Gentoo as a distribution kek

>>106016967
And that is why I think it is important to run you own local mirror of a ports/package mirror. Even if you lost the internet tomorrow you would have nearly any software you would ever need.
Add a local mirror of the roms for SNES or play station and you will be set for games as well.
Self hosting is going to be required for the enthusiast.

>>106016441
Will simply create a new hardware architecture.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So Stallman was right the whole time?

>>106016994
Not just right. Incredibly prophetic. More than even he realized. The only thing I think he didn't forsee was how the normie synergizes with the corporate to really make things unstoppable.

>>106016844
Instead of asking for clarification, tell them you don't want it. We need as many people as possible telling legislators, "WE DO NOT WANT THIS CRAP".

>>106017051

>>106017051
Legislators don't care if you want it or not, they care whether the big corporations and bankers/businessmen want it. Also there is only one party (AIPAC party if you will) that pretends to be divided into two, the left-right split is theatre. There are three ways this bill fails, it either loses favour among Big Tech, a couple (not just one) legislators get shot by a couple (not just one) assailants over a period of time, or it gets thrown out by the Courts. The first is a possibility, the second simply won't happen (no one cares that much about software), and the third is a possibility. So either shill the harmful effects of the bill to your coworkers or donate to the inevitable legal battles against it.

>>106017083
Pushing the first is probably the best strategy, because the courts are on a "let any dictatorial bullshit through" bent.

>>106017083
>So either shill the harmful effects of the bill to your coworkers

Hit the slack channels tomorrow. Tech is filled with "WAIOW TECHNOLOGY!" types who won't understand on the surface, but you might be able to get some traction by posting some of the obvious issues related to open source/Linux, from a business perspective.

>>106016754
The supreme court said there is nothing unconstitutional from a public safety perspective for asking you to identify yourself. There are people right now viewing this thread who would say unironically you should need to sign your documents with your own centrally government stored and recorded key.

>>106016073
>law asks for things you literally can not do, like running faster than a speeding train >Canonical ignores it and gets sued
>somehow lawyers fail to convince judge it's impossible and get fined anyway
Canonical will literally have to close shop on California as it can not operate under their retarded laws
>Oh, but muh californian dollarinos!
Well, that's what the cartel is there for.

>>106017154
>Canonical will literally have to close shop on California as it can not operate under their retarded laws

Yes. And then what happens? Oops, one of the only Linux supporting companies is mortally wounded. All we've got left is Google/Microsoft/Apple. There's a reason they're supporting this bill.

>>106017101
won't work. most in tech are left leaning. they won't attack california. they will probably call it a right wing conspiracy and if you physically show it to them, they will probably go "well it's probably a good thing."
tech industry is heavily on the west coast, with california being the home of silicon valley. tech industry is a left wing industry by default.

california votes 60-70% democrat.

>>106017251
and to state, i live in california. if you want to get this killed, you need to get republicans to support it. if elon came out supporting it vocally then it will have a good chance of dying because then people will think its a right wing thing meant to hurt gays or something.

>>106017266
Even that wouldn't work. It's a blue state effort and almost certainly coordinated overseas with the half dozen similar things coming in Europe. There's really no stopping it.

>>106014995 (OP)
What exactly would stop me from lying about my birthday like I do on literally any site or app that asks me now?

>>106017307
you have to show physical proof of your existence

>>106017309
Which section says that

>>106017309
uh oh

>>106017311
It doesn't. But that's not what makes it devastating. It's the fact that the developers of individual apps on the store have to do the age verification, with no distinction made between adult and non-adult content. So shit like a freeware mp3 player would have to (somehow) do an age check before it could be downloaded from the store itself.

>>106015930
>The giant social media conglomerates don't mind because the regulatory burden for them is miniscule and they know it's a burden for what's left of the independent web which they'd like to die out anyway.
Yep. All these regulations push people towards big platforms.
>It will not be the same by any means but I'm suggesting everyone joins Instagram and follows our account on Instagram instead.
https://www.thehamsterforum.com/threads/big-sad-forum-news-online-safety-act.2091/

>>106017331
So the complaint is unmanageable work for developers? I can sympathize, I hope this will be struck down.
For a minute there it seemed people were fearmongering over some broad ID verifcation nonsense that clearly does not exist in this bill.

>>106017344
It is broad ID verification nonsense.
- You will have to specify an age at OS SETUP TIME.
- The developers of software, even ticky-tack shit like text editors will have to do download-time age verification. That's not just "unmanageable work". It's impossible. What do you do with a tool that was released 5 years ago and no longer has a developer? How do you distinguish between some random tool and a core library that comes from the same repo?

>>106017360
shut up

>>106017360
What happens if you just push your utility to some random repo like Ubuntu or Debian? You would now also have to permanently run some kind of server that did age checks before people could download from the repo. It's absurd.

>>106017373
For God's sake, why are you people like this? Why can't you just take the time to understand what's being shown to you? Fucking idiots.

>>106017360
Again, I sympathize, these are very realistic scenarios that boomer legislators could never really comprehend.
Still does not have anything to do with submitting your ID in any way, shape or form, however.

>>106017397
Missing the point bro. This obliterates open source, and almost all software that doesn't come from huge companies that can afford to attest every single download. That will make the walled gardens of today look like a joke.

>>106014995 (OP)
If you're a legal adult you have nothing to worry about.

>>106017420
You will, retard. Because it'll destroy open source. And your only choices will be walled garden corporate OSes. Your privacy is completely gone at that point.

>>106016994
He has been right about everything so far. Open source, as he predicted, was a cancer meant to destroy Free Software and benefit corporations. This whole thing will be 100 % powered by open source software in one way or another.

>>106017462
That I don't get. Open source is devastated by this. The only survivors are large companies that can afford to attest everything. They won't be open source.

>>106015330
>How do you intend to go rogue if you literally cannot download anything
You get a VPN and browse from a Nevada IP, are you stupid? Spoofing this fake ass society we live in is the easiest thing in the world.

>>106017474
Little Timmy making a Minecraft launcher will get fucked by this legislation, Microsoft won't because their Linux™-powered servers will check their user's age.

The point being that all big corporations will run their age verification on open source (not Free) software which is ironic.

Another thing, this kills Free Software in its entirety. Developers have now to add a way to restrict the software distribution and users themselves can no longer redistribute software. The GPL is now unenforceable.

>>106017493
>The point being that all big corporations will run their age verification on open source (not Free) software which is ironic.

Doubtful. Open source really only works if you have enough willing contributors. No random person is going to work on software they can't even publish. OSS that's driven entirely by companies relies on tons of libraries that are -not- driven by companies. If that dries up, it all gets forked and made close source.

Meanwhile kids on TikTok and Instagram can watch accounts dedicated to fetishizing grooming and pedophilia EASILY by searching for Roblox or FNAF content. Twitter (X) is full of CP spam and Facebook never actually solved the CP group problem.

What a fucking joke this all is.

>>106017514
Right now open source is powered by developers who want to have green squares om GitHub because juniors are expected to have 5 years of experience or they get no interviews.

Shit is fucked.

>>106017550
Yeah, true enough. These people (including the seniors) are completely baffling. They seem legitimately interested in working on the most boring of shit. As long as they're writing code, they are enthusiastic. They don't seem to seek out actual interesting things. Just whatever retarded boring things that goes by. I'll never get it.

>>106017538
why are you posting screenshots of random teenagers' anime titty waifu fantasies?

>>106017603
Because these "protect the children" laws are bullshit. They'll be pushed to groomers on social media instead.

Also, because it was the only image on that account that I could upload here.

Why can't the store do this? Imagine if when making movies the studio had to go to every single viewer and verify their age first

>>106014995 (OP)
So there it is lads, the beginning of the final step of their embrace, extend, extinguish plan, it's only a matter of time before they make the internet unusable for anything but corporations.

>>106014995 (OP)
Checking in to point out: the reason they specifically changed it to "developers" is because that gives the law global reach. If it was just up to the store, the number of people they could go after is limited. By targeting developers, they can go after millions of people - pick and choose where to send a message.

>California bill
>UK Online Safety Act
>visa and mastercard porn ban
>at the same fucking time
I'm noooticing...

>>106017487
Once the software and infrastructure is in place it's only a matter of time before it spreads everywhere. The UK shit got the ball rolling so it's pretty much over at this point.

>>106017442
If I don't have to pay for it, it has no value

>>106023954
> The only thing that I understand to have meaning is BUYING THINGS!

Rock on , lil' zoom.

>>106015013
You thought horseshoe theory was a joke?

At the end of the day they both want the same thing: control.

>>106014995 (OP)
I reached out to my representative. I don't think it will do much because she is a stupid democrat and they cheat massively in my district.

But I said to vote no, explained why this bill is not a good idea and suggested to expand upon COPPA which already does a lot to protect kids online. And lastly a suggested to crackdown on apps that violate the existing rules that put kids at risk.

>>106025701
Thank you, anon.

Every state is moving in lockstep.

>>106016977
>Attention, this can catch fire
>But we can't put fire retardant
>Because cancer
>So please look out for both
>k thx bye
I suppose the state thinks people are retarded (they are, but not that much)?

>>106015186
>application store
>not every repository in existence.
anon... can you tell us the difference?

>>106026694
repositories don't require accounts

>>106027249
Congratulations, you're the 1000th person to not understand the bill. The "account" is the account on your OS/device. Not on the app store or repo. The "account" (Windows, Mac, Linux) provides the signal that the developer (not even the store!) is required to attest prior to download.

>>106027352
At this point it's just bait.
2/10, I'm still retarded for falling for it.

>>106027383
It's not. Read the bill. It's not even very long. Like 2 pages. It is exactly what is being said.

>>106017653
You don't understand. The goal of these changes is to exploit the retard-pedophile loop.

The government, or proxies of it in media complain about internet pedophiles and agitate for new corporate/government spying and censorship powers.

Retards hear this and uncritically support whatever the new spy powers are. The Retards also harass other people and accuse anyone who has concerns about increased surveillance of being pedophiles themselves. Retards are too stupid to understand the value of privacy and view it only as something enabling child abuse, because that's what the government told them. It is also very easy to get the Retards into an even more aggressively stupid than usual emotional state via media manipulation.

The government/corporations get new surveillance and censorship powers. The government then does absolutely nothing about the internet pedophiles it cited as the cause for needing the new powers, and instead uses the new powers against political dissidents/journalists/etc. However, the media stops complaining about internet pedophiles for a bit, so the Retards forget they were expecting the government to do anything or that there was a problem they found upsetting and settle down temporarily.

Some amount of time later, the process restarts. Retards, being retarded, play their role of uncritically supporting the next way of censorship/surveillance and harassing anyone who questions it again. The Retards never ask what happened with the old powers they gave the government. The Retards never ask anything, because they literally do not have the cognitive capacity to have or understand these concerns, especially when whipped into an emotional state by the media.

>tl:dr; Democracy was a mistake.

>>106017538
There is no way to child-proof the internet, kids shouldn't be allowed to use the internet at all. No age verification bullshit though, just heavily stigmatize it and maybe fine parents who let their kids do whatever the fuck

>>106027407
The Retardo-Democratic enslavement loop is a very interesting theory. All you need is a critical mass of 92 IQ subhumans and you can make anything happen because you can convince them of whatever you need. Further, it even seems to apply to actually intelligent people because things like autistic tendencies and fetishistic technical fascination can disarm people who would otherwise see through the veil.

>>106014995 (OP)
Why not just geoblock California?
All the real tech work is being done in Seattle these days anyway

>>106016569
Judaism has the final say, and Israel hates Americans rights

>>106014995 (OP)
I want that anon who posted the CA porn bill getting failed as a dunk yesterday to kill himself over this way worse bill getting passed.

With the recent hack of the Tea App revealing women's photos and IDs, do you think this might change the course for the need of age verification to access 18+ sites, perhaps leading to safer alternatives to verifying age?

>>106030430
>safer alternatives to verifying age
No. There aren't and even when users point out how Tea lied about storing IDs and photos, they will be papered over and called liars and conspiracy theorists.