upvote

points

by SoftTalker8 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ETH_start3 hours ago|
next
[-]
So instead of instituting restrictions that will probably cost society hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in lost economic efficiency, publicly fund development of better parental control software, and publicly fund its adoption to make it the market standard.
reply
upvoteby simoncion8 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> Parental control does not work today, it's too fragmented and too difficult.

Then legally require it to be effective and easy-to-use-if-you-take-a-few-minutes-to-read-the-instructions.

See also [0].

[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911863>

reply
upvoteby inigyou7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This is literally what California did with the Digital Age Assurance Act, AB1043.
reply
upvoteby simoncion5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> This is literally what California did with the Digital Age Assurance Act, AB1043.

There's apparently information that you didn't read contained in the footnote of the comment you replied to.

Based on this layman's reading of the law, [0] California did literally the opposite. They require major OS vendors to require users to enter their birthdate or indicate in some other way their current age, and then require programs and websites to act on that age information. This is entirely different from requiring major OS vendors to allow a "guardian account" to set fairly-fine-grained restrictions on one or more -er- "ward accounts", and then requiring programs and websites to refuse let the "ward account" do the things that those restrictions say that it isn't permitted to do.

"Restrict by age" neither accounts for precocious under-eighteens, nor does it account for vulnerable elderly or otherwise brain/developmentally-damaged adults who need protected. And because "restrict by age" cares very much about your age, and because it's not going to work nearly as well as promised by those pushing it, it will inevitably require scans of both a photo ID and one's face and/or other biometrics.

A "you don't need to know anything about this account other than that these are the things it's not supposed to be able to do" system gives zero shits about the identity of a person, so there's no plausible path for it to gate access behind submission of any identifying documents to any third party.

[0] <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...>

reply
upvoteby inigyou5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It requires you to enter a birth date which is not required to be your birth date. In case of a conflict between the age verification birth date and any other birth date, only the age verification birth date may be used for age appropriateness checks.
reply
upvoteby simoncion5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Okay? That is not parental controls that are

  [L]egally require[d] ... to be effective and easy-to-use-if-you-take-a-few-minutes-to-read-the-instructions.
Additionally, I expect that -due to kids lying about their ages- within five or ten years, the regs will have "graduated" from self-attestation to ID and biometrics collection. It's likely that other states will require that sort of collection much sooner, causing every US-based company to do that regardless of the existence of less-invasive regs.

Like, seriously... if "the kids can lie about their age and there are no consequences for lying" is the bar you want to set, just do the 1990's thing where sites and programs have a "Warning! This might not be suitable for kids!" page/screen that has a checkbox that the kids can check or button that they can press that lets them lie that they're over-seventeen and grants them access.

reply