Thread 106875815

California AB 1043 signed. Mandatory os-level, device-level, app store, and even developer-required age verification for all computing devices.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/13/governor-newsom-signs-bills-to-further-strengthen-californias-leadership-in-protecting-children-online/

Since Microsoft/Google/Apple will be the ones deciding on the standard (bill doesn't specify one) it'll surely end up being some trusted computing bullshit that will end Linux for non-business users. We're unironically witnessing the beginning of the end for private computing.

>>106875815 (OP)
Doesnt it just Mandate a question "r u 18?" without any verification?

Although does it apply to Linux distros?

>>106875815 (OP)
Nowhere in the article mentions "hardware" or "OS".
OP is a faggot.

>>106875841
It applies to all operating systems on all general purpose computing devices.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/2025

(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

It does not mandate verification. But it leaves the "signal" standard totally unspecified. Which means they are punting it to Microsoft/Google/Apple to figure it out. Websites, app stores, etc are not going to accept 10 different ways to do things. So there will be a single standard created. And they will not make it FOSS friendly, on purpose.

>>106875854
>Required age verifications by operating system and app store providers to help prevent children from accessing inappropriate or dangerous content online.
Retard.

>>106875815 (OP)
>California
good. let them suffer.

>>106875841
It mandates ID verification to prove your age the same way they do for porn websites.

>>106875815 (OP)
>signed
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>>106875895
>not in my neighborhood meme
Holy shit you people are hopeless.
All you care is virtue signaling.

>>106875892
That's what the article says, but that's not what the bill says. The requirements of the bill are universal across all devices and operating systems. And it makes no distinction between adult content or otherwise. ALL "apps" and downloads on ALL sites, including plain websites are obligated to do the age check. The only narrow exemption is for plugin type stuff.

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

(b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

>>106875912
it's already too late everywhere. This is just another hail mary for big tech to cement their monopoly. fuck California, fuck silly con valley, etc.

>>106875946
Not really a hail mary if it's already signed into law. The same bill almost made it through other blue states this year. Now that it landed in California, it'll spread everywhere next year.

>>106875890
>Websites, app stores, etc are not going to accept 10 different ways to do things.
thats fine, it doesnt have to actually work. you just need to make a gesture to fulfill the letter of the law

>>106875841
Every time you run apt/yum/pacman/emerge/etc to update your system or install software you have to verify your age to a third party and every time you launch any other program whether it's Vim, Vscode, mpv, Vlc, Firefox, Chrome, Gimp, Krita, Python, Perl, GCC, Clang, etc, doesn't matter; all applications as defined by the law must verify a user's age range.
This probably kills all unsigned software, all fan games, every Linux distribution, local accounts on Windows, and more depending on how the Californian attorney general upholds the law.
You also cannot plead ignorance of an age range when it comes to racking up fines because the fact that a signal is broadcast means you're liable even if you ignore it.

>>106877036
A particularly baffling part about the law is that it doesn't even say -why- you have to verify the age range, or when you have to use it. For example, if you're GCC, what are you supposed to do if the age is like 13? Does it matter? The law saying nothing about this. It just says they are obligated to request the signal. It's so retarded.

>>106875815 (OP)
nothingburger

>>106877120
If you're GCC, you're not an app store or an OS. So you don't do anything.

>>106877193
That's not what the law says. It's insane. In the law, a developer is distinct from an app store or OS.

f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.
(b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

just say "you can't run this OS if youre in north Korea, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, Crimea, or California"

>>106877433
There's no way this stays in California idiot. That's ground zero for tech companies. If this passes there, it'll spread everywhere in a few years. Illinois and Michigan both tried the same bill this year and failed. Next year it'll pass.

kek linux wont be allowed in silicon valley

>>106875815 (OP)
good
americans SHOULD suffer

>Nieces now need to be nice to their Uncles with age verified accounts in order to buy hair brushes
I'm not sure CA thought this one through at all, this is gonna be bad

Californians don't deserve better and who am I to tell them they can't have what they voted for anyway.

>>106875901
this age verification thing is honestly so annoying
i really hate it
isn't there a way to bypass it?
why do i have to identify myself every time i jack off?

>>106877531
>hair brushes
???

>>106875815 (OP)
Communism

>>106875815 (OP)
Commies driving this. All the "freedom loving" nonprofits love this because that means mass castration cult and communism will be one step closer and take the state towards death cult.

Im telling you, in few years digital ID would be mandatory in every first world country, and to even access the Internet you would have to face scan or finger print via your digital id internet login app.

>>106878167
im gonna get rid of all of my tech

>>106875815 (OP)
>leadership
>protect the children
>further strengthen
you know its bad when they bring out these ""arguments"". All thats missing is "freedom".
can we please normalilze pedophilia so these kinds of arguments stop working

>>106875815 (OP)
wont this make it easier for predators to identify children?

>>106875912
do you care about censorship in Turkmenistan? No? WHEN WHY THE FUCK SHOULD ANYONE CARE ABOUT COMMIEFORNIA?

>>106878372
Because it's not going to stay there you absolute fucking mongoloid. California sets the standard when it comes to tech.

>>106878672
>be coder in commieformia
>leave commiefornia
>like most sane developers
>don't have to comply with commieformia laws
>also stop getting looted by niggers every Tuesday
problem?
inb4 4chan v. commiefornia as a sequel to 4chan v. UK OFCOM

>>106878726
You forgot
>continue to vote as you did in commiefornia
>you and your ex-commiefornians gradually transform your new state into commiefornia
>leave once things get bad enough, and repeat in a new state

How did we go from the promise of freedom and knowledge in the 2000s to this shit? It's so painful to watch one of the greatest things in human history get destroyed so completely.

>>106878788
>>continue to vote as you did in commiefornia
oh yeah, forgot about a god that failed
restrict suffrage to ban newfags idk if feds would find it legal

>>106878125
He's implying that age verification will be used as leverage by abusers to (implicitly) negotiate terms with victims, and vice versa. Basically, the same shit that happens around driver's licenses, tobacco/alcohol purchase, etc with young people.: conditional access creates a black-market-ish situation that bad actors take advantage of. Sometimes, it could be argued that no regulation is better than regulation because of things like that.

am I gonna have to fill out age verification to open a tcp socket? what about banning advertisements to the underaged?
blow it all up. it's over.

>>106875815 (OP)
>(g) This title does not impose liability on an operating system provider, a covered application store, or a developer that arises from the use of a device or application by a person who is not the user to whom a signal pertains.

Literally unenforceable law, there is no consequence to non compliance.

>>106878167
I'd be ok with this if they have a new Internet in place before the rule hits worldwide.
But this rule, for the current internet where we share the same watering pool as third worlders? Fuck no, I'm going offline

>>106878083
Everyone laughed at coom hoarders for saving porn. Who is laughing now?

>>106879042
>>106878083
Funny enough, this might be what stops the AI and crypto bubbles from popping. Coomer hoarders pimp out models trained on their stashes for crypto, and cloud companies look the other way while hosting due to the revenue implications.

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

>(a) A covered manufacturer shall do all of the following:
>(1) Provide an accessible interface for requiring device owners 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.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1043/id/3193837
this just seems like another vague "implement useless parental controls" demand, that doesn't actually affect much

>>106879169
That's because you stopped reading there. Here's where it goes.

>(b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a >particular user from an operating system provider or a >covered application store when the application is downloaded >and launched.

Note: DEVELOPER. Not app store. Developer, as defined a distinct entity from an app store. And at "download" and "launch" time. If interpreted literally and with maximum malice, this would mean every single random jagoff with a program on apt would somehow have to do an age check before apt can serve it to a downloader. Which of course means, "no one can comply".

Also note, "app store" includes basically everything under the universe from a random website, to FTP to apt or the AUR, to Google Play. It is 100% comprehensive.

>>106879324
all of this is incredibly ill-defined.It's gonna get nuked when it accidentally impedes FAGMAN

>>106875815 (OP)
It is amusing to read the reddit thread about this. Not even one person reading the entire bill. Just surface level reading of the summary and liberal smugging.

https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1o5x0zd/new_california_law_forces_operating_systems_to/?sort=new

>>106879360
It won't. It's supported by FAGMAN. Linux machines behind corporate firewalls won't be subject to any of this.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/13/california-law-online-age-checks-00606115

>>106879169
>i-it's nothinburger! Ignore it!
>>106879360
>okay it's not nothingburger, but it will not pass it! Ignore it!
Why you are like this?

>>106879434
im just saying this whole bill is so retarded it's gonna start costing a lot of companies a lot of money and it'll get killed or ignored

>>106879458
a.) It's supported by tech companies (see above).
b.) Corporations cannot just ignore laws.
c.) kys

ruining the world once again

>>106878800
People let Stallman get cancelled for being too autistic and as it turns out you have to be as autistic as him to dedicate your life to doing political activism for libre software.
Politicians only care about the opinions of lobbyists.

>>106878672
>California sets the standard when it comes to tech.
In reality,
https://xkcd.com/927/
we're getting all 50 of them, plus Canada's, Australia's, New Zealand's, the UK's, Europe's, and eventually the UN's standards all at once.

>>106880077
>UN's standards
recomendations :^)

>>106875907
Anon, that means its already passed both the state house of representatives and senate. Its law now.

I think this might end up getting struck down by the supreme court. It seems like a serious privacy violation, and since its mandated by the state, it has a real chance of being struck down.

Why will this matter to me? I use Debian and am actively moving away from big tech solutions in favor of my own or offerings from smaller providers?

>>106880487
Because all operating systems, all "app stores" (including apt), and all developers are subject to this law now?

>>106880487
>https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1043&showamends=false
>(e) (1) “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 that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

Github can be considered to be a covered application store because you can download binaries from a repo's releases tab. Same will probably apply to Gitlab, SourceHut, Codeberg, SourceForge etc.
And from where do you think Debian is getting upstream source for the vast majority of programs?
The way it's written also means anything using curl or wget counts.
Or stuff like Python's package manager, pip and its "app store" PyPI.

>>106880873
>Github can be considered to be a covered application store
This is an interesting point. Microsoft would love nothing more than to be able to cut out huge swaths of users and force them into their ecosystem. But, Github is like 95% Linux source and the entire business world relies on it. If they pushed a standard that made Github unusable for general Linux users, they'd be in a bind. They'll figure out some sort of evil shit though.

>>106881016
I'm already assuming the next push in the whole Microsoft Account nonsense will be to only supply a valid age verification signal from Windows for online accounts only with local accounts left to rot in limbo.
I would absolutely love to be wrong and am desperately waiting for somebody to give me a reason to be optimistic.

>>106875815 (OP)
constitution > state law
clear 1st amendment infringement, you can't require age verification for a text editor

>>106881102
Also re: Android sideloading required registered developers. If you flush 95% of FOSS devs, and require dev registration, it becomes a lot easier to enforce the age signal. What, no signal? Sorry, you're not a verified developer!

It's the developer clause of the law the is the most retarded and baffling part.

>>106875815 (OP)
Just ban Californians from downloading packages. Nothing of value was lost

>>106875815 (OP)
Imagine what a utopia the US would be if we just glassed most of California, Chicago, and NYC.

>>106881113
https://dw-news.dreamwidth.org/44429.html

>>106881102
>I'm already assuming the next push in the whole Microsoft Account nonsense will be to only supply a valid age verification signal from
It's not specifically for this, but there is very obviously a coordinated effort happening behind the scenes at the world scale. The amount of shit dumped on everyone this year is way too huge for it to be coincidence. There's a push at some international level to lock down unmonitored general purpose computing. There's no other explanation.

>>106881200
and?
1)social media isn't a text editor
2)you have to actually challenge the law in court for it to get shitcanned

>>106881295
> constitution > state law
>removes the injunction and lets bad shit happen anyway because courts fetishize damages occurring after the fact instead of preventing them by striking down bad laws

>>106881355
Also, this is an effort from the left, so the activist court system will tend to allow it, unless it gets all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Good. I was actually getting quite tired of technology. Normalfaggots ruined it.

>>106875921
>>106877332
>f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.
Oh look you've made it do definition f. Why didn't you include this one?
(c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.
If I remember correctly c comes before f in the alphabet.

>>106881665
What's your point. Developers create and maintain applications. Distinct from the app store that distributes them. BOTH are obligated to do the signal check. Are you fucking soft?

>>106875815 (OP)
SCOTUS will nuke this one since it has nothing to do with porn.

>>106875815 (OP)
Does this affect websites or purely "applications"? From what I've understood of it so far is that it's purely apps. So the repo would theoretically need to verify your age before downloading Firefox, but websites wouldn't need to do anything more than they are already doing now? Is that right?