There will always be sites that don’t care and won’t comply with any OS level restrictions in the first place.
And I’ll support strong laws that hold those sites accountable for negligence. I’m really struggling to see why this is so controversial.
Right, I was making the point that just like the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church can’t just shrug off their responsibility, online orgs don’t get a free pass either.
But if these laws are passed, then they will get a free pass, and just point at the OS maker as the problem. Be mad about that and I’m on your side.
These companies that show clear negligence need to be seized by the state and stripped for parts.
Yes! That’s what you should be upset about. These companies are pushing these laws to get out of being held accountable for their products. Be upset about THAT and I’m on your side!
(But that would also mean that small developers and Fediverse hosts would also have to be held accountable for their service.)
Okay, for your ignorance, parents bare some responsibility but not all the responsibility.
Just like the parents didn’t bare all the responsibility with the Catholic Church abuses or the Boy Scout abuses, they also don’t bare all the responsibility for the online abuses. The providers of the service also share in that responsibility.
I know you don’t. And you don’t have to. No one is forcing you to care. No law anywhere threatens any legal liability on the user.
But it’s because providers of games and online platforms don’t care that governments are having to pass laws to force organizations producing these products to care.
(Which is also why Meta is pushing these laws so hard, so that it becomes someone else’s legal responsibility to care.)
So you are going with: Deny the problem of child sexual predators exists at all.
Right. That’s why Facebook is trying to get the laws changed so that it’s the OS that is responsible.
There is a big conspiracy behind this, it’s just not a shadowy-government one.
Are you saying that you literally haven’t read any things else on this thread?
It’s not the job of the [Catholic Church] or the [Boy Scouts] to monitor and control a kids access.
Yes it is. It absolutely is. If you provide a service, you should responsible for the safety of that service, especially if you are providing and advertising that service to kids.
They are focusing on the platforms. That’s exactly why Meta, et. al., are pushing for these laws. To off load that responsibility.
And if you are blaming the parents then you don’t understand the problem.
It reeks of a coordinated agenda,
It is a coordinated agenda, just not a secret one like people want to think. It’s being pushed by Meta and a string of popular app makers and games to avoid having to be responsible for their own platforms.
Therefore, some Fediverse instances, may end up implementing age checking, or stopping altogether if they can’t afford the additional costs of age checking.
That’s a strange argument to me. That’s exactly what Meta is intending to prevent from having to do by pushing these laws. If countries and states pass laws like the California law specifically, then no fediverse instance will need to worry about age verification. They just ask the user’s browser to ask the OS. California’s version of the law would really help small businesses and small developers, because it puts all the child protection responsibility onto the OS.
Now, regarding the “kid friendly” limitation: if the Web gets limited to “non-adult content”… what’s “adult content” to begin with?
In this case, “kid friendly content” becomes “any content that the website wants to be responsible and liable for letting users that report being <18 have access to”.
My biggest frustration with the community is not that people don’t like the proposed solution but that
I’m really not upset with individual users here. I understand that you are removed from the problem and don’t understand it. I really don’t blame you personally. I have had training on youth protection and it’s not an easy problem, and just throwing the parents under the bus isn’t fair. When it comes to child predators, they are often just as much the victims as the kids are. (Yes, I mean that.)
I’m upset with the EFF. They don’t have an excuse for their ignorance. They’ve been taught the problem many times and just refuse to acknowledge it. (Red flag if there ever was one, if you ask me.) If they didn’t like the verification rules then they need to start proposing alternative solutions (which they don’t have).
Do you also believe that the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church also have no responsibility to protect kids, because doing to would similarly require collecting data on people?
(I would disagree with you if you said yes, but I’ll respect your position for being consistent.)
If their goal is to find an excuse to declare you a terrorist then there are much easier ways to do that that are already available to them. This really isn’t an efficient way to do that.
And, as best as I’m aware, no age verification laws anywhere threaten any consequences for the user. The consequences are only for the OS makers.
(Granted, the California law, at least, could be read to say that it’s the entity installing the OS to confirm ages, not necessarily the OS maker. So for most Linux distros that would shift the user age verification responsibility completely to the user installing the OS, but I’m not sure how that would work out in courts or whether websites and applications would recognize that. It will probably never actually be an issue that is adjudicated.)
… And if a kid using that browser was abused because the browser lied to the website about the users’ age, then the browser’s creators should bare some consequences for lying to the website that otherwise would have put up protections. Right?
I don’t think that COPPA says that companies can’t collect data on kids l at all. Just that there are limitations on how they can use that data while the kids are still kids. When the kids grow up then the previously collected data is fair game. (Why the do you think Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, etc. are so willing to invest in “for Kids” products?)
And, we’ll probably disagree on this, but I generally think that people and companies that provide a service are responsible for that service. That includes the Boy Scouts, the Catholic Church, and Lemmy hosts. And everyone in between. (Including parents, but the responsibility is no only on them alone.)
I don’t understand. There will still be porn sites for people.
The way it will work is that when you tell your browser to go to a porn site, the site will ask your Bowser for your verified age. Your browser will then ask your OS for your verified age. Your OS will respond “18+” to your browser. Your browser will tell the porn site “the OS says 18+”. Then the porn site will say “Cool, here’s the porn.” That’s it.
If you use a non-compliant OS, then your browser will say to the porn site “I asked the OS and the OS says ‘null’.” Then the porn site will say, “Well sorry. Then your OS isn’t supported. Come back when you are using a supported OS.”
That’s it.
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with. That’s generally what I said. If you use a non-compliant OS, your experience will be “age-gated”.
Though I don’t think they will completely block access entirely. Collecting data on kids is extremely valuable to these companies, because kids grow up to be consumers. They will happily continue to let you in, but you won’t be able to go to the 18+ areas.
And only the 7 people using the OS will care.
Sure. And if a parent knowingly installs one of those OS’s on a computer they let their children use, THEN you can fully blame the parent.