Let's be absolutely clear here: The explosion of people being comfortable coming out as some stripe of LGBTQ+ has everything to do with an open internet where youth were not restricted from finding out about information related to how they felt inside. Instead of being made to feel like strangers in their own skin, with a world telling them that people like them didn't or shouldn't exist, they instead found community and self-love through internet forums and information which allowed them to pursue full, healthy lives as adults.

This "protect the children" malarkey is one more way for the religious groups who oppose LGBTQ+ culture to "protect the children" by restricting access to this kind of information, reducing their ability to find it in their formative years, in the name of protecting them while actually stunting their personal growth.

It extends beyond sexuality as well, although that is the most obvious since many religions are deeply censorious regarding sex.

It also affects subjects like atheism, as the various religious cultures generally do not want people contemplating the idea that there isn't a god, especially not while they're young, they want you long indoctrinated into belief before you can explore different ideas.

Further, when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s, everything I knew about drugs was literally old wives tales meant to scare kids away from drugs, and then the internet came around and suddenly there was a boom of actual, verifiable scientific information about drugs so if you wanted to experiment with drugs, you knew what you were getting into. I once had a conversation with a girlfriend who was a bit older than me about her experiences with LSD as a teen, and she admitted that at the time she really didn't understand on any scientific level what was happening or what the nature of hallucination was, she just knew she was having fun and seeing crazy shit.

This is a backdoor to restricting access to important information that youth need to have access to for making healthy decisions for themselves sexually, religiously, and in terms of what substances they put in their bodies.

The birth of the internet gave us a beautiful period where people could grow up with access to accurate, verifiable, worthwhile information that helped them navigate and understand the world they were growing up in and who they were within that world.

This kind of legislation intends to snuff out that openness and accessibility which led to increased openness and acceptance of LGBTQ+, atheism, and safe drug use (including the understanding that some illegal drugs like marijuana and LSD are probably safer than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco).

Age Verification Laws

The most misleading title ever. They are surveillance laws

Presumably even if Linux must provide a means of reporting an age, you can always modify that distro to always report the oldest age?

The thing about doing age verification at the OS level is the user could just install a crack that rewrites the necessary code. It'll take some heavy DRM type stuff to block that. Possibly hardware support, like a specialised TPM.

No way can that be standardised and then rolled out quickly. If they rush it then it'll be some proprietary power grab.

The alternative is each website and app does it separately which will be spotty and provide endless security breaches.

It'll be a shitshow either way.

My Linux is not ever going to have any age verification.

I'm not living in those backwards contry and if that push ever comes to shove, there will always be way around it. It's the beauty of open source, no entity is liable to comply. And we're in the brink of ad-hoc internet which would render that stupid centralized and overgoverned shit to zero.

Told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you-

Your Linux distro may be next. I use Arch by the way.

The most practical solution is probably to "not sell Linux in California anymore". I guess distributions could geofence the iso download page for plausible deniability and then that's that, right?

Bet Microsoft is behind this.

this is the pipeline to fully ~~trusted~~ restricted computing.

Linux couldn't possibly comply properly with these new restrictions? Consumer grade prebuilts and laptops now only run "certified" operating systems, just like most mobile devices.

Surveillance and censorship are the ends, "age" (identity) verification is the means.

The problem with Linux for the government is that it has a unique ability for being easily modified by users. You sure can force some very popular distros to follow these laws but you cannot force less popular distros made by enthusiasts to comply. Especially if those enthusiasts live not in your country.

That security guard has a tiny head.

Time to get a permanently offline machine.

One should be able to skip it when creating an account and then it should default to Jan 1st 1970 on all open source OS's to provide anonymity.

The very day I hear that my os is asking people their age is the day I find a different one.

Age verification today. What other BS surveillance info tmr?

Unfortunately, it falls right into the whole authoritarian taking control, surveillance, and manipulation push that became not only pretty open in activities but also pretty transparent through published findings and contextualized previously published materials. Seems likely that it's all connected.

The OS angle is huge, and worth picking a fight with, but I haven't seen any coverage over how this goes after developers too.

I think this is an attack on ALL open-source.

These bills are written by people who are clearly or maliciously tech illiterate and don't understand either the terminology or the practical impacts. And of course it's wrapped in 'what about the children?!'

They include definitions like (paraphrasing; not quoting a specific bill, but New York, Colorado and California do this):

• "Application" is any software application that may be run on a user's device -- so ... EVERYTHING.
• "Application Store" is any publicly accessible website or similar service that distributes applications -- so ... also everywhere, such as GitHub or GeoCities.
• "Developer" is a person who writes, creates or maintains an application -- so if you have a github repo, or you've posted a binary or perhaps even a script somewhere recently, you're a developer.

And then require both developers and operating system providers to handshake this age verification data or face financial ruin. I think the original intent or appearance of intent is that the store developer needs to do the handshake. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine these definitions aren't vague enough that they can't be weaponized against basically anything software.

I have a github account, and have contributed to "applications". As I read them, these bills pose a serious threat to me if I continue to do so, as that makes me a "developer" and would need to ensure the things I contribute to are doing age verification -- which I don't want to do.

I think that even outside the surveillance aspect, the chilling effect of devs not publishing applications is the end-goal. Gatekeeping software to the big publishers who have both the capacity to follow the law and the lawyers/pockets to handle a suit. These laws are going to be like the DMCA 1201 language (which had much much more prose wrapped around it and was at least attempting to limit scope), which HAS been weaponized against solo devs trying to make the world better.

I fully expect some suit against multiple github repo owners on Jan 2, 2027.