Do we know who is funding this? is this one of these things where Meta doesn't want the responsibility for this, so they are pushing to have the OS have the responsibility or something like that?

▲

0xbadcafebee 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is literally just Meta. https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh... https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b... https://tboteproject.com/

▲

progval 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The investigation you linked to is entirely hallucinated by LLMs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659552 (tboteproject and the "Reddit researcher" are the same person).

They also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is "under surveillance" because it got a few thousand requests from Google Cloud et al, most of them to a single page. This really shows how low their standards are.

▲

Random_BSD_Geek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I share your wariness of the LLM garbage, but I believe the conclusions are correct. This has Facebook's stink all over it. I worked there and know of what I speak.

▲

AlecSchueler 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So we should believe the hallucinations because they sound like something that could be true? Does the LLM in the middle somehow makes it more trustworthy than if GP had just shared their own pattern-matching conjecture?

▲

Random_BSD_Geek an hour ago | parent [-]

No. I think LLMs are garbage. Separately, and unrelated: I think Facebook is behind these bills. The LLM may be garbage and still sometimes produce a correct result.

▲

AlecSchueler 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Ok, but then we should look for an actual source beyond "Don't worry that it's garbage, it smells ok in this case."

	▲	Random_BSD_Geek 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You are arguing with something I did not say. Yes, it would be nice to know with certainty who is behind these bills. It sucks how much opaque money influences American politics. Josh Gottheimer's press release[1] on HR8250 mentions the "Meta Parents Network." I don't know what that is, but it does have "Meta" in the name. Buffy Wick's noise about AB1043 claimed it was passed with the support of tech companies. I have spoken directly to one person close to AB1043 who told me Facebook argued against AB1043. I have doubts. But if true, I suspect they were not arguing in good faith and had ulterior motives. In the end, no matter who is secretly lobbying for or against age verification bills all over the planet, the bills are terrible, and we should fight them. [1] https://gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-gottheimer-announ...

▲

troad 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's an SMBC strip that makes your exact point, except they intended it as satire, whereas you seem to mean it in earnest.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

▲

Random_BSD_Geek an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm confused by how my point got so lost.

I think Facebook is behind these bills. I think that from personal experience working at Facebook.

That an LLM may have arrived at the same conclusion is unrelated. LLMs are garbage. Don't use them.

	▲	Tarq0n 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We're trying to have a discussion about facts, not opinions.

▲

groovypuppy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Meta. Specifically to undercut Apple.

▲

riffraff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How does this undercut apple? This entrenches apple's position as a provider of "verified" devices.

▲

politelemon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nope. Apple have been enthusiastic in their implementation of it even without it being required in several countries.

	▲	b112 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		One thing which companies don't like, is a law suit. https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/business/character-ai-google-... If something is codified in law, they can comply with the law fully, and yet not have any real backlash from users. This can also shield them from many lawsuits. Conversely, if they start ratcheting down age-verification on their own, users will become quite upset. If they don't ratchet it down, then... as you can see, potential lawsuit. And this isn't just about LLMs, once the concept of "a platform is liable for harm" happens, it's about everything. Including content other people slap into an app store. And the US has been talking about section 230 removal, countries around the world are reducing such exclusions, so the wind is blowing towards even more liability for platforms. If you look at Google's recent moves to identify all developers prior to install on Android, there may even be some of this in that. How can they ban someone from publishing illegal material, or material Google will be liable for, if they don't even know who the publisher is? They'll just slide into a new account. (Note, I said "some" not "all", there is often not just one reason for an action) So I suspect that the push is from all online platforms of any size or scope. It will shield them, protect them from liability, whist at the same time redirecting user ire at the legislation, not them. HN types might still brood, but the average person won't have insight. "Protect the children" as a reason works for the average person, it works very very well, and really, that's what a lot of these lawsuits are about. So I point back to such lawsuits as the start of all of this. And I see it as why there is a push from Apple, Google, Meta and so on. And simply because I'm saying "big corp wants this, not just Meta", doesn't mean I'm saying "Meta isn't doing anything". Meta can be pushing this, hard, whilst at the same time every other large corp can be working towards the same outcome.

▲

kmeisthax 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Facebook. There's a wave of child endangerment lawsuits incoming and they want to head that off at the pass by having governments shift all that liability over to the OS vendors.

▲

progval 4 hours ago | parent [-]

How does that help Facebook? They already have plenty of signals to guess their users' age, what would they do with an other one? They are not going to ban children anyway.

▲

yborg 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It helps them by making it somebody else's responsibility to get it right and thus shields them from liability.

▲

Frieren an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The OS should start labeling everybody as a child by default. Forbid Facebook to show ads and any harming content by default. The OS has little less to lose with this approach than FB.

▲

progval 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So it lets them know for sure who is a child. What liability does that shield them from, and how?

	▲	ben_w 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		FB etc. may argue "device says this user is an adult", even though device may say that only because the parents don't set up separate user accounts e.g. shared family iPad, or because the kids being more tech savvy in the first place like we all were when I myself was a kid.

▲

close04 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It must be OS responsibility because that’s the only place that allows the next step.

Everyone is so concerned with kids pretending to be adults, what about adults pretending to be kids? Any service that has any kind of private chat or picture sharing option will be a playground for “verified” kids.

Next step, “we must go further with the verifications until everyone is verified everywhere”. This is where the OS part comes in. Wish it was sarcasm.

▲

hulitu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Apple, Google, Meta and Microsoft. Maybe with a push from 3 letter agencies, because it makes their life easier.

▲

jona-f 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, time for pitchforks and guillotines is long overdue. Alas, wrong crowd.

	▲	RobotToaster 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion" - Thomas Jefferson