This seems... not terrible? The typical counter-argument to any "think of the children!" hand-wringing is that parents should instead install parental controls or generally monitor what their own kids are up to. Having a standardized way to actually do that, without getting into the weirdness of third-party content controls (which are themselves a privacy/security nightmare), is not an awful idea. It's also limited to installed applications, so doesn't break the web.

This is basically just going to require all smartphones to have a "don't let this device download rated-M apps" mode. There's no actual data being provided - and the bill explicitly says so; it just wants a box to enter a birth date or age, not link it to an actual ID. I'm not clear on how you stop the kid from just flipping the switch back to the other mode; maybe the big manufacturers would have a lock such that changing the user's birthdate when they're a minor requires approval from a parent's linked account?

That said, on things like this I'm never certain whether to consider it a win that a reasonable step was taken instead of an extreme step, or to be worried that it's the first toe in the door that will lead to insanity.

▲

ndriscoll 16 hours ago | parent [-]

The language suggests to me that GitHub would be a covered app store and a FOSS Linux distribution without an age gate API would be illegal in California (along with all programs that don't check the age API, e.g. `grep`), so it seems quite a bit worse in terms of killing free speech and culture than requiring adult sites to check id to me.

Notably, a "covered app store" doesn't seem to need to be... a store. Any website or application that allows users to download software is covered. There's no exemption for non-commercial activity. So every FOSS repo and programs like apt are covered? The requirement is also that developers will request the signal. No scoping to developers that have a reason to care? So vim is covered? Sort? Uniq?

Honestly I can't believe big tech would go along with it. Most of their infrastructure seems like it would clearly be illegal under this bill. Either there's something extremely obvious I'm missing or every lawyer looking at this bill is completely asleep at the wheel.

▲

GeneralMayhem 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I hadn't thought about GitHub -I'm guessing the authors of the bill didn't either - but you're right, that is somewhat concerning. Still, I don't think it's the end of the world...

> The requirement is also that developers will request the signal. No scoping to developers that have a reason to care?

I don't see that requirement. Here's the sum total of the developer's responsibilities (emphasis added):

> A developer with actual knowledge that a user is a child via receipt of a signal regarding a user’s age shall, to the extent technically feasible, provide readily available features for parents to support a child user with respect to the child user’s use of the service and as appropriate given the risks that arise from use of the application, including features to do all of the following:

> (A) Help manage which accounts are affirmatively linked to the user under 18 years of age.

> (B) Manage the delivery of age-appropriate content.

> (C) Limit the amount of time that the user who is 18 years of age spends daily on application.

It would be nice if it had specific carve outs for things that aren't expected to interact with this system, but it seems like they're leaving it up to court judgment instead, with just enough wiggle room in the phrasing to make that possible.

If your application doesn't have a concept of "accounts", then A is obviously moot. If you don't deliver age-inappropriate content, then B is moot. The only thing that can matter is C, but I'd expect that (a) nobody is going to complain about the amount of time their kids are spending on Vim and (b) the OS would just provide that control at a higher level.

▲

derbOac 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is what worries me a bit, that this will be used as an excuse for walled gardens and so forth.

"We can't allow side loading because that would be illegal in terms of age verification".

I would love to be wrong about this though.

▲

GeneralMayhem 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's always possible that they'll say it, but it would be a lie based on my reading of this bill. Sideloaded apps can choose whether or not to respect the OS's advice about the age of the user, it's not on the OS or device to enforce them being honest.

▲

g-b-r 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's beyond obvious that it will, and it's why Google and Apple support it

	▲	samrus 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Article says apple hasnt said anything about it yet, neither for nor against