I adore their courage. I assume they feel prepared to mount a legal defense? It would seem silly to be this forward about willful noncompliance if they're just hoping to stay under the radar. I can't tell if this is driven by impulsive pettiness with no real plan for how to mount a legal defense, or if they're engaging in a clear-minded legal mission.

> Ageless Linux is a registered operating system under the definitions established by the California Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043, Chapter 675, Statutes of 2025). We are in full, knowing, and intentional noncompliance with the age verification requirements of Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.501(a).

▲

aniviacat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They seem to be ready for this:

> Q: What if the AG actually fines you?

> Then we will have accomplished something no amount of mailing list discussion could: a court record establishing what AB 1043 actually means when applied to the real world. Does "operating system provider" cover a bash script? Does "general purpose computing device" cover a Raspberry Pi Pico? Can you fine someone "per affected child" when no mechanism exists to count affected children? These are questions the legislature left unanswered. We'd like answers. A fine would be the fastest way to get them.

▲

taneq 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep, the goal of civil disobedience is literally to get sued/charged/arrested in order to force the issue to be (hopefully) properly and publicly resolved.

▲

dataflow 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have a feeling they're going to be very disappointed with the actual answers they'll receive to these questions.

▲

Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

On the one hand, I'd love a judge to respond 'yes' to all of these, if only to confirm how ridiculous they are and that a reasonable implementation is impossible. On the other hand, I'd hate for a judge to respond 'yes', because then the enforcement of said ridiculousness becomes vindicated.

▲

dataflow 3 hours ago | parent [-]

These aren't all yes/no questions. And what I'm saying is I think anyone who thinks there's some sort of paradox in answering these will be in for a rude awakening. E.g., "How do you fine someone per child affected?" Idk, maybe the parents that become aware of their children being affected would join a lawsuit, and others would not be parties to the suit?

▲

akdev1l 2 hours ago | parent [-]

so many people start asking random questions like these acting as if judges are drooling baboons or something

“What’s even an operating system will this apply to my toaster?” - probably not, a judge would ultimately decide.

	▲	bee_rider 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That seems pretty annoying for people who sell computing appliances like smart toasters, routers, and televisions, and videogame consoles—do they preemptively start implementing in case a judge decides they are covered? Why not write an easy-to-interpret law in the first place?

▲

pocksuppet 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am predicting it now: They will not be sued or fined.

▲

EarlKing 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The truly aggravating part is that if they really wanted to thumb their noses at the Attorney General's office and get away with it there's a pretty straightforward way to do it: Fork every single project they want to offer through their operating system and thereby become a first-party developer-distributor thereof. AB 1043 is worded in such a way that it really doesn't apply if the operating system developer doesn't provide a covered application store (see 1798.501(a)(1)). This should apply in every other such app store accountability act in every other state (save Texas, since this is the text they seemed to adopt after the Texas law was challenged). Instead, all they're going to accomplish is getting pimpslapped by the Attorney General's office.

Maybe they're interested in performative noncompliance, but I'm not. I'd rather engage in creative and effective noncompliance.

▲

sophrosyne42 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They argue that they are a coverd application store.

'Definition: "Covered Application Store" '"Covered application store" means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or can download an application. — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.500(e)(1) 'This website is a "publicly available internet website" that "distributes and facilitates the download of applications" (specifically: a bash script) "to users of a general purpose computing device." We are also a covered application store. Debian's APT repositories are covered application stores. The AUR is a covered application store. Any mirror hosting .deb files is a covered application store. GitHub is a covered application store. Your friend's personal website with a download link to their weekend project is a covered application store.'

▲

EarlKing 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I know that. I'm saying this is utterly futile and if they really wanted to accomplish something they'd structure themselves as I described above. If their goal is to highlight the absurdity of the law... they won't actually accomplish anything. The Attorney General is not going to magically decide this was a terrible idea and reverse course. If they want to change the law then this isn't the way to do it either. If they want to ensure business as usual then what I propose is one way to do that.

	▲	sophrosyne42 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Generally the point is for these things to go to court to be struck down or otherwise limited. This is a valid and regularly used means to change the law. You seem to think that you are aware of how the legislations definition will be applied, but that is not known until these things are taken to court.

▲

Tuna-Fish 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The site makes it very clear that the purpose is very explicitly not to "get away with it", it's to try and get fined, presumably to then challenge the legality of the laws in a higher court.