| ▲ | avarun 17 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
This bill is a strictly better version of the age gating initiatives that have been passed in other states and countries like the UK and Australia. If age gating is inevitable, and it seems as though it is, this is the least bad way to do it — enforcing the onus on device manufacturers, who can do verification one time and then throw away the information. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | _heimdall 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> If age gating is inevitable What could possibly make it inevitable? We are either okay with those with authority forcing us to ID ourselves in some form or we aren't. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | userbinator 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
and it seems as though it is Only with that attitude will it be. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | g-b-r 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
It would easily mean that you're required to have an unmodified device, running a locked down system, to be able to access any service that uses age verification. Although, a much more sensible alternative, would be to have parents (that do want the control) give their sons devices that send the "minor alert" signal, and have the services detect that. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||