Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
Is there a government push to verify my name and email before I can access content or is there a government push to have age verification be at the OS level? Could maybe that be a meaningful differentiator that makes “lul r u still using ur real name? Fucking Idiot” response not relevant?
I understand the technical differences and that we can just put a bullshit date format passing value there. I’m not fucking stupid.
My objection is that it is step 0. Before you can have an OS verify to meet government mandated verificaiton, you must create the value store.
My objection is that we’re entertaining putting in the infrastructure that enables actual verification.
You know what else enables actual verification? Having electricity. I know it sounds stupid and me being condescending, but I really want to drive home the idea that something being a step to potentially doing age verification doesn’t make it inherently bad. As presented, having that field also opens up the possibility for parents to be able to set a non root account for their kids and be able to control their access in an easier way.
As is, being a locally enforced data point, is something that can enable giving more control to parents without surrendering anything to governments. That’s a a positive thing that I’m sure many parents would like, being able to enable “kid mode” in the OS level for their kids, in a way where the parents are the ones with the agency to do it.
Idk, I feel like demonizing things for their potential bad future is not the best way to approach technology. Raise warnings, address immediate concerns, and put stoppers when actual issues arise. That’s how I like to operate.
And I never said it was inherently bad.
It’s the context. It’s the context. It’s the context. It’s the context.
Please engage with me and the arguments i am making - not imagined narrow slices. This isn’t a high school debate where you get points for speed and word count.
Let me restate: In the context of governments actively seeking to restrict access to information on the Internet, I think implementing ANY infrastructure that move towards the government’s ability to achieve their censorship is bad and shouldn’t be done.
I’m not saying there’s no benefit to adding a plain text date field to user information. I’m not saying it’s the end of the world now. I’m not saying it’s verification.
I’m saying use this as a point to stand up and fight and say “NO, You have no authority over the information I can access. And we should not give in because ‘for the children is a lie’ and they’re not actually trying to protect children while our government is RUN BY LITERAL CHILD FUCKERS.”
I understand your point, I really do, it’s just that this post and the arguments presented are overly emotional and sensationalist. You can write what you wrote here instead of shout words into a post where no one that should read them will read them. You create an echo chamber and muddy facts.
I agree that maybe not the best moment, maybe in the future when your government of child fuckers changes (please don’t do the US defaultism, it’s annoying). It’s not that point I’m trying to combat, it’s the overly emotional and biased comment.
Also, maybe I write too verbose because English is not my first language, it’s not intentional, I’m not trying to win anything, I’m just trying to convey my ideas. In a less serious tone though, the fucking gall to tell me that this is not a highschool debate right after repeating a phrase 4 times xD. Sorry, had to.
Anyway I think we are in agreement, thing is useful, maybe not the best idea to implement now, it can wait a bit. Have a good day.