The two couldn't be more unrelated. The idea that age verification in an OS is bad is a niche position by a select few. You don't hear dissenting views on hackernews because the majority here belong to that group and going against the grain is down voted. On the other hand, you're comparing it to killing humans. Making everything into a moral dilemma cheapens the argument. Just because you disagree with the law doesn't give you moral high ground to ignore it. I think cookie consent questions are terrible but I'd not dream of not adding one if compelled by law

This is an argument that the law sometimes is clearly in the wrong.

> The idea that age verification in an OS is bad is a niche position by a select few

I am pretty sure that's not true.

just because the state called their demands and threats a 'law' doesn't give them a "moral high ground" to force everyone to comply with their demands.

What if the OS had a mandatory ethnicity check?

Let’s ask IBM.