I draw the line at when a third party internet-connected service is doing validation of ID. Let’s be honest though, I strongly believe such a thing isn’t possible on a FOSS operating system environment unless they could control what was bootable on the device at a firmware level, enforce signatures to ensure that you couldn’t boot something unrestricted, remove the ability to be root, and block LD_PRELOAD so signals couldn’t be faked. There’s probably more ways to circumvent that.
What I’m trying to say is real ID verification on Linux would be awfully hard to implement, and I guarantee you, nobody would put up with it. They’d fork to a version that doesn’t have it immediately as a protest. Right now, we’re considering implementing something akin to the date pickers that were ubiquitous when signing up for internet services in the early 2000s where it’s just an honor system.
The only way to do this that protects privacy is to accept that, but also parents of young children can just not give them root.
NO!
Content filtering should be local. Don’t broadcast people’s ages to the entire Internet. This is not only NOT the only way to do it, this is the dumbest way to do it.
Where the hell is this FUD coming from? No one is talking about broadcasting the fake age someone puts into this field. Your strawman doesn’t even make sense.
Even broadcasting that the user is a minor is idiotic.
It’s not FUD. This is an assault on privacy.
What I said makes perfect sense. Instead of having every computer tell every website that it needs to censor itself, have the content filtering done locally. That’s the smart way to enact this - if it weren’t just an obvious an excuse to ease us into online ID verification, and not actually about the children.
What is being talked about isn’t telling websites anything. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what the change even did.
No I’m not. If your PC has a flag that tells a website it needs to block that PC from viewing it…that is information that does not need to be shared, and can be abused by the Epstein pals that are pushing this legislation.
Again, that isn’t at all what it being talked about here. You’re making up a fictitious thing to be mad at.
You’re trying to constrain the conversation to not include the overall push towards exactly what I’m talking about. This specific action was in anticipation of what I’m talking about. You’re naive if you think this is where they’re stopping
You’re talking about a collective “they” and the ultimate result of a whole bunch of slippery slope bullshit.