The California and Colorado laws don't involve any ID.

And those are better than the ones that do involve ID, which also exist, but not as good as the thing where the service tells your device the rating of the content instead of the user telling the service their age.

▲

gzread 9 hours ago | parent [-]

How would that work when the service has mixed content? You'd have to go to kids.facebook.com to get the child-friendly version? With a client-sent signal they can just filter it, the same way Accept-Language can automatically translate the UI.

▲

hellojesus 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But why do we need it at the os level? Couldn't a parent just set a header in the browser for their kid and be done with it?

▲

labcomputer 8 hours ago | parent [-]

What happens when the kid installs a different browser?

▲

hellojesus 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Agreed. Which is why I think the OS level is dumb. Kids can just live boot or launch a vm or keylog their parents' account.

If it's windows, they can just live boot into the OS and get access to pretty much all the files anyway, if the parent didn't encrypt things.

My point is, if the implementation is trivial to bypass, why do we need this legislation? Just let the parents use the existing tools we have and parent.

	▲	gzread 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Unless the VM app is marked 18+

▲

AnthonyMouse 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Elements that contain adult content are tagged and then the user agent doesn't display them.

This also has the extremely useful benefit of making you aware that something is being censored, because then it has a censorship box in place of the content. Whenever censorship is happening it should be flagrantly conspicuous rather than invisible.