A cynical person might suspect that the reason they are doing this is so that Linux developers don't have standing to challenge the law on 1st amendment grounds...

▲

anigbrowl an hour ago | parent | next [-]

LEarn to take a win as a win. People who are unable to look at anything without seeing themselves being scammed are clinically paranoid.

▲

jwitthuhn 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It is an admission from the writers that this law is unrelated to safety and people should very loudly and frequently point that out.

If OSes that don't verify the age of their users are a genuinely unsafe for children, why should they be allowed just because they are open source? That doesn't seem to mitigate dangers associated with age in any away I can identify.

	▲	anigbrowl 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[delayed]

▲

jrmg 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

There is so much conspiratorial nonsense in these threads…

▲

cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

	▲	seanw444 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They're finally applying their 2A strategy to the 1A.

▲

SilverElfin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.