No such mandates should take place at all.

> The only device mandates that should be taking place is for the default installations of web clients should be checking to see if parental controls are enabled. This only impacts the major browsers. An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes. If they are enabled and the person logged in is on a regular account (not admin or power user of sorts) then the base installation of web clients must check for an RTA header [1]. If present, prompt for a override password and also give the option for the admin to approve-list the domain at that time. That's it. Not perfect, nothing is or will be.

It's useful to contrast this with the various device-based mandates that have been created in order to get a sense of what legislators seem to be trying to do. With that in mind, a few points:

* What you are proposing allows parents to opt in via parental controls, but age assurance mandates (both device-side and server-side) tend to require positive action to enter unrestricted modes. In some cases (CA AB 1043, for instance), this is just a matter of entering your age. In others, you actually need to demonstrate your age via some technical mechanism.

* While many age assurance mandates focus on adult content, which is primarily consumed via the Web, others (e.g., Australia's Social Media Minimum Age) focus on social networking, which is primarily consumed via apps, so anything that is Web only will not be effective.

* Site-level granularity isn't really fine enough in some cases. For example, the New York SAFE for Kids act prohibits certain behaviors such as algorithmic recommendations when a user is a minor, but doesn't require blocking minor usage entirely. It's potentially possible to implement this with something like RTA, but it would have to at minimum be at much finer granularity.

Section VI of https://kgi.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Age_As... goes into quite a bit more detail about various architectures (disclaimer, I'm an author).

None of this is an endorsement of age assurance techniques; I'm just trying to help flesh out the situation.

> All legislation regarding age verification must revolve around this otherwise people must reject it as an abusive form of tracking and privacy invasion.

It's a big late for that, given that around half of US states already have some kind of age assurance mandate.

Has this idea been discussed when drafting legislation? I mean are they aware of it but dismissed it for any reason or no stated reasons?

I largely agree, but the RTA header doesn't seem to be good enough for most websites to use. When a website wants to block browsers with parental controls on, but it isn't porn and it shouldn't be blocked by SafeSearch, what do they do?

https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/140733/how-to...

> An intern at each browser company could add this check in minutes.

An intern could also just delete the product which would also "solve" this "issue". The fact that it's easy or cheap is not significant to the problem at hand.

> should be doing is setting an RTA header

Many sites will just set the header by default. Now you've created a problem.

> then progressively fine them into oblivion.

This does nothing. See: Ofcom vs 4chan.

> device mandates

Mandate that the device provide an API for child protection software. Then it's up to individual parents to decide to install that software or not. Then we also get competition in this market rather than relying on whatever solution an intern cooked up one day.

A) Aren't you targeting a completely different problem than this law? It's my understanding that this law targets the collection of the age from the user. What the user agent does with that signal is a different problem, and seems to already be solved, except for the definition of "actual knowledge" which they are trying to establish here.

B) How would your RTA header intersect with content rating in different jurisdictions? What if the content is illegal for children in Turkey but legal for children in Kentucky?

Absolutely trivial and totally comprehensive solution, enabling adult content blocking at the account level, device level, network level, and the ISP level. Could even be expanded to any sort of content blocking, if you want to allow households to restrict access to vaccine critique or criticism of the king without violating the First Amendment or rooting everyone's devices.

The problem is that the point is to root everyone's devices. Anyone explaining how easy this is would be pushed out of the conversation as fast as if they were advocating for single-payer healthcare.

edit: I've been advocating the nearly identical but opposite solution - restricted access sites shouldn't respond to requests that lack an appropriate age/content restriction header. If they do, jail them.

They're literally going to have to do this anyway. Rooting people's devices to force them to lie about their age when they install their operating system is an absolutely fake pretendy solution; the only way it works is if you have to verify your age with some government agency when you install an operating system, in order to make that OS age official. The point is the identification.

Thats crazy talk, how are we gonna build a database of computers tied to physical identification of users by which we can monitor, control, and monetize… you’re saying parents should be responsible for their children? How is the state going to be able to exert more control if it doesn’t have ubiquitous surveillance of it’s population!? /s

If you go take a read through the CA bill text that "became law", you'll quickly realize that whomever did write it must live in a very narrow bubble where the only "computers" that exist in the world are tablet style cell phones, the only OS'es that exist in the world are Android and iOS, and the only way anyone installs any software on the only computers that exist is via an "app store".

Meanwhile, while the overall writing clearly indicates the author has a very narrow view of "computers", the definitions of the terms is so broad that every computer, even the tiny embedded CPU in your microwave oven, might just need to ask your age before it allows you to do anything.

The bill was written by Buffy Wicks, who represents me in the State Assembly, who is very good on housing, transportation, and climate, and who should absolutely stay in her lane and not try to legislate platform APIs.

No, no, and absolutely.

The bill is written 'do good, stop bad stuff by establishing a committee or group to make sure fund good stuff, bad stuff doesn't happen' then the law passes and lobbyists write the details that fund the programs that tax the people that generate the income for companies that donate to the politicians that sell their votes to the lobbyists and interest groups.

California politicians start with the end goal "maintain power, secure revolt, obtain capital, deny failure".

It goes beyond lying to your face. They will be convincingly genuine, heartfelt, while finding a way to extract as much as possible for themselves, by extension their party, by extension the 'government' and do absolutely anything to keep the illusion that you have a choice, a vote, and a voice.

I lived here my whole life. These politicians are evil. Lie, cheat, and steal - deny if caught, punish if provoked.

Same, my Dad ordered it for me at the time; sits on my desk :-)

Lost the will? How about paid to look the other way?

Another way to say it is that capital is operating as it always has: in its own interest.

Nah, you're not cynical enough.

This is the classic "what we're trying to do is bullshit on a fundamental level so we're gonna just exempt random things until it becomes a niche issue and we can just do what we want and from there we'll just close all those exceptions over time" move.

Give it 5yr and you'll have idiots in the comments talking about how the "linux loophole" was a mistake and should be closed.

Source: history

That’s exactly what it is. It removes standing, and that is a major flaw in our legal system. We need significant changes to defend constitutional rights properly.

> I don’t want someone else choosing how I control what my kids do. Give me tools to control it myself

I agree. Parental controls have been the norm for thirty years. The adult who owns the device should have control over it, not Microsoft or California.

maybe at 7 and 10 they shouldn't use device connected to the internet without your active supervision at all? What will they miss?

What tools would you want?

Kind of interesting - basically exempts any OS that’s under an MIT or GPL licence…

… doesn’t that excuse Android and possibly XNU, too?

> The proposed amendment specifically states: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.

Young children should be supervised when they access the internet.

Adolescents are not going to be defeated by such easily bypassed technical measures.

These laws are a trojan horse for control of the adult population. The relative anonymity and freedom of the internet is a threat to those who spend their lives seeking power over others.

A better question - how do you imagine age verification is going to protect children from being groomed? Age verification will force services to assume everyone is a child until proven otherwise. Now it will be harder to tell adults and children apart online. Next, adult content will be harder for adults to acquire, pushing people into black markets, where illegal content will be easier to find.

I appreciate that people are concerned for their children, but we can't keep signing away basic rights and freedoms just to allay parents' anxiety for another few years.

There are so many low-hanging fruit to choose from if you want to protect children online, so it makes zero sense to start with the option that deprives every adult of their rights.

When I hear that people own cameras, what I hear is that people are okay with children being harmed for the sight convenience of the freedom to create photographs. Let's just be honest about how we're calculting things: You think living without a camera, which is how humanity has lived for 99% of its existence, is worse than children being groomed.

If you are worried about your children, keep them off the internet. Don’t rob society of its right to privacy and anonymity and speech.

Why don’t you start by explaining how an age verification at the start of a Linux installation help against children being groomed?

I have 7 grandchildren with the oldest being 10. My daughters are very strict about not providing their kids with devices that have internet access. The only one of the 7 who has a phone has a flip phone with no internet access. There simply is no reason to provide young children with access to the internet.

any solution that depends on everyone agreeing on what content is age appropriate is a bad solution.

dame libertad o muerte