A new California law says all operating systems need to have age verification

2026-02-2714:55829734www.pcgamer.com

It's basic, and by the looks of it, near unenforceable.

MANNING, SOUTH CAROLINA - FEBRUARY 23: California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to a crowd during an event hosted by the South Carolina Democratic Party at the Carter-Sullivan American Legion on February 23, 2026 in Manning, South Carolina. The Governor had scheduled appearances in Pineville, Manning and Rock Hill, South Carolina on Monday. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
(Image credit: Sean Rayford/Stringer via Getty Images)

The government of California is implementing a law that requires operating system providers to implement some form of age verification into their account setup procedures.

Assembly Bill No. 1043 was approved by California governor Gavin Newsom in October of last year, and becomes active on January 1, 2027 (via The Lunduke Journal). The bill states, among other factors, that "An operating system provider shall do all of the following:"

"(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

"(2) Provide a developer who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface that identifies, at a minimum, which of the following categories pertains to the user."

The categories are broken into four sections: users under 13 years of age, over 13 years of age under 16, at least 16 years of age and under 18, and "at least 18 years of age."

OneXPlayer OneXFly with the Bazzite Linux distribution on the screen

(Image credit: Future)

In essence, while the bill doesn't seem to require the most egregious forms of age verification (face scans or similar), it does require OS providers to collect age verification of some form at the account/user creation stage—and to be able to pass a segmented version of that information to outside developers upon request.

That's likely no big deal for Windows, which already requires you to enter your date of birth during the Microsoft Account setup procedure. However, the idea that all operating system providers need to comply (in California) has drawn a fair degree of ire from certain Linux communities.

"This is basically impossible for California to enforce" says CatoDomine on the Linuxmint subreddit. "Even if Linux Mint decides to add some kind of age verification, to comply with CA law, there's no reason anyone would choose that version."

"It's more likely they will put a disclaimer on their website: "not for use in California."

Looking at the wider picture, however, mandatory age verification appears to be a growing trend. The UK government's current implementation under the Online Safety Act has come under heavy fire for privacy concerns, while platforms like Discord have received similar critique for their face-scanning age verification efforts, not least because of associations with companies that may not be using the collected data for mere age-confirmation purposes.

And while this implementation is California-specific, it does speak to a wider desire from governments to enforce age verification on a legal level—even if in this case, it seems virtually impossible to effectively enact.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By nlitsme 2026-02-2723:1210 reply

    I will start making a list for linux then.

    rm - ok for all ages.

    grep - 18+, you can obviously use this to search for porn.

    find - 18+, see grep.

    reboot - ok for all ages.

    echo - ok for all ages.

    cat - 18+, prints the porn you found directly to your terminal.

    sudo - 18+, obviously.

    kill - ok for all ages. This is the US, right.

    ps - 18+, no peeping at other processes.

    • By Mordisquitos 2026-02-2723:513 reply

      > echo - ok for all ages.

      > cat - 18+, prints the porn you found directly to your terminal.

      Sound good in theory, until you realise that any teenager knows perfectly well how to trivially get around the lack of `cat` to read their terminal smut:

          $ while read -r LINE; do echo $LINE; done <my_porn_file.sext

      • By sk5t 2026-02-2813:02

        Simply require per-use parental consent for fopen.

      • By noisy_boy 2026-02-284:091 reply

        I am sick and tired of these teenagers and their sharing of bash oneliners on insta.

        • By LoganDark 2026-02-288:471 reply

          Obviously the solution is to ban their use of all social media so those pesky bash oneliners can't be shared in the first place!

          • By bluehatbrit 2026-02-2823:081 reply

            Absolutely not, that would prevent profits to big political donors. Instead we should ban bash oneliners, or ID gate them. No loops or pipes (etc) unless you've handed over government issued ID.

            • By LoganDark 2026-03-0122:47

              Then we can build a centralized database of government IDs and use them to make deepfakes, send spam in the mail and perform identity theft. Genius!

      • By RGamma 2026-03-0115:42

        cat ~= rev | rev. Are all isomorphisms also 18+? Does it spread to | or rev?

    • By hansvm 2026-02-2723:32

      rm - between -i and -r this is just a less efficient way to search for porn

      reboot - you never know what the sysadmin might have loading on boot, unsafe as it could load porn

      echo - ASCII art would like to have a word

      kill - I know the US will have mixed feelings, but communicating with other processes might allow them to send you porn

    • By medi8r 2026-02-283:09

      ed - 45+ nostalgics only

    • By owl_vision 2026-03-014:481 reply

      fsck - 18+ obviously can't just fsck around filesystems

      • By pamcake 2026-03-017:55

        fsck around and find out

    • By casey2 2026-02-280:44

      >reboot - ok for all ages.

      I'm not so sure, who knows what woke UEFI and edgy motherboard vendors are putting up as splash screens these days. And the law doesn't even consider those since they aren't part of the OS!

    • By al_borland 2026-02-287:361 reply

      rm needs to be 18+, kids could use it to cover their tracks.

      • By fusionadvocate 2026-02-2812:22

        The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    • By Perepiska 2026-03-047:25

      echo "porn"

  • By fangpenlin 2026-02-2719:2728 reply

    There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place." There are just too many examples. For instance:

    - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode switch bug cannot be patched...)

    - 3D printers should have a magical algorithm to recognize all gun parts in their tiny embedded systems

    - Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

    At this rate, California should just go back to the Stone Age. Modern technology is simply not compatible with clueless politicians who are more eager to virtue-signal than to solve any actual problems or even borther to study the subject about the law they are going to pass. There will be more and more technology restrictions (or outright bans on use) in California because it's becoming impossible to operate anything here without getting sued or running afoul of some overreaching regulation.

    • By SllX 2026-02-2721:287 reply

      The incentives are all wrong. You can serve up to 6 two-year terms in the Assembly or up to 3 four-year terms in the Senate, but regardless of which combination you do, nobody in the California legislature can serve more than 12 years combined across both Houses of the legislature.

      So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals, we have a resumé-building exercise that we call the legislature. They’re all interchangeable and within 12 years, 100% of it will be changed out.

      • By roenxi 2026-02-2721:583 reply

        > So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals

        Raises an interesting question of who is less popular, the Californian government or the US Senate. The experiments with long-term professional legislatures have generally not been very promising - rather than statesmen it tends to be people with a certain limpet-like staying power and a limpet-like ability to learn from their mistakes. In almost all cases people's political solution is just "well we didn't try my idea hard enough" and increasing their tenure in office doesn't really help the overall situation.

        • By AnthonyMouse 2026-02-2722:511 reply

          The interesting middle ground might be to prohibit anyone from serving more than two contiguous terms in the Senate or four in the House. Then if you've done your two terms in the Senate, you can run for a House seat, do three terms there and then your old Senate seat is back up for reelection. Except your old Senate seat now has a new incumbent who is only on their first term and you're running as the challenger. Meanwhile there are more seats in the House than the Senate, so if you hit your limit in the House you could go work for an administrative agency or run for a state-level office for two years and then come back, but then you're the challenger again.

          The result is that you can stay as long as people keep voting you back in, but you lose the incumbency advantage and end up with a higher turnover rate without ending up with a 100% turnover rate. And you make them learn how other parts of the government work. It wouldn't hurt a bit to see long-term members of Congress do a two-year stint in an administrative agency once in a while.

          • By aldonius 2026-02-2723:272 reply

            Interesting idea and I do agree that contiguous is OK but total is not.

            I think I'd suggest a more generous Senate term limit. Three terms (18 years) would allow for someone to see out a complete Presidential super-cycle, for example.

            The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

            • By DrJokepu 2026-02-285:261 reply

              >The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

              I’m not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but I’m going to challenge the notion that this etymological connection carries meaning. The word comes from Roman Senate, and in that context in Latin “senior” really meant people with higher status rather than age. Latin is full of these weird double meanings. Compare to seigneur in French or señor in Spanish. Also, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

              • By abustamam 2026-02-286:271 reply

                Yeah, many words are literally divorced from their etymological root. Literally ;)

                • By Darrengineer 2026-03-0819:49

                  I know this is eight days later, but I just want to give sincere applause to this comment. I think this is the first time I've seen 'literally' used in what can be described as "correctly" (i.e., in line with the etymological root).

                  All those using it to mean 'factually' are out there making a farce of the language. A farce!

            • By petejodo 2026-02-280:211 reply

              Or incumbents have to win some larger percentage of the vote in order to win over time

              • By mh- 2026-02-282:191 reply

                This is an interesting idea. Would be curious to hear from someone who thinks this is a bad idea (why).

                edit: I see the "term limits are anti-democratic" takes elsewhere in the comments, so I guess let me narrow the above ask to "someone who isn't opposed to term limits, but thinks this idea is flawed."

                • By 6510 2026-02-283:001 reply

                  Fill the arena with HR ladies and have them do a battle royal to produce a half decent set of interview questions.

                  Put the electables in isolation cells fromwhere they one by one end up on the Tee Vee, give voters an app with AYE, NEY and Uhh? The questions are red by the winning HR lady but also appear on the app.

                  The applicant writes the fizzbuzz etc etc

                  Then, after the job interview, we give the job to the most satisfying candidate!

                  It's not necessary but I would also add a series of certificates and diplomas for the voter to show they actually have some kind of idea what the job involves. The level 1 certificate should be supper simple and easy to create. It will grant you 0.1 extra vote power. There could be as many levels as we want but to grow beyond [say] 50 votes should require a mythical effort impossible to attain for 99% while we aim to reserve the right to cast 5000 votes for 1 to 5 people with supper human abilities.

                  The top 20 should have to explain their AYE's and their NAY's to the Tee Vee audience.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OHm6FsgJM8

                  • By terminalshort 2026-02-2813:29

                    Fill the arena with all the HR ladies, and then feed the winner to a lion. After that you might actually find someone capable of interviewing an applicant.

        • By jfengel 2026-02-2815:36

          The Senate is wildly unpopular, but individual Senators get re-elected overwhelmingly. The problem is always other people's Senators.

          Everyone would like to term limit other people's politicians but they like experience for their own. The length of terms can't resolve that one way or the other.

          With the Supreme Court we tried eliminating terms altogether, in the hopes that it would give people a chance to bond away from the necessity of appealing to the public. That just pushed the problem back to getting the most ideologically committed judges on the bench... through the Senators.

          I haven't heard any structural solution to the problem of Americans just not liking each other.

        • By SllX 2026-02-2722:26

          Bold of you to assume any aspect of the California State legislature is visible enough to be more or less popular. People at least pay attention to what the US Senate does, and you know that no matter how the next election goes, the US Senate as one body is unlikely to go very far off the deep end in one direction or the other.

      • By ajnin 2026-02-280:561 reply

        That's a non sequitur. Creating long-term professional politicians is not going to create legislators competent in the various domains they legislate on. It's going to create politicians competent at being elected long term, whatever the means.

        • By abustamam 2026-02-286:241 reply

          Yeah we need not look further than the 70 year old men in the United States senate/congress who have been in their seats for longer than I've been alive, making laws on technology they don't understand.

          I don't know what the solution is for California, but I don't think it's that.

          • By ece 2026-03-0113:221 reply

            The solution is to get money out out of politics. Term limits are good for the exact reason you mentioned. For tech law, there should be some sort of tech committee that knows laws like this are idiotic.

            • By ImJamal 2026-03-030:471 reply

              California has term limits (up to 12 years regardless of being in the assembly or senate) and this law still was passed so I don't think you are really selling term limits...

              • By ece 2026-03-032:33

                Term limits do prevent situations like the supreme court, where any institutional knowledge and length of terms can be weaponized for political gain.

                Overall, if the objective was to have a non-identifying age flag in operating systems, this isn't the end of the world (though I would have preferred enabling other things I've mentioned here in the past like opening up OSes). If there were younger people in the legislature that tried to understand this better than octogenarians, I think term limits are working fine.

                Hopefully parents can use the parental control tools built around this non-identifying flag for some good.

      • By skissane 2026-02-286:032 reply

        It is interesting that this is a mainstream existing thing in the US (at the state level), but more of a fringe proposal in the rest of the English-speaking world.

        I think the answer may be that the difference in political systems (parliamentary vs presidential) and party systems (less two-party but with greater party discipline) solves many of the problems term limits are intended to solve in completely different ways.

        Maybe a better answer would be for US states to adopt the parliamentary system? Although there is some debate about what the "republican form of government" clause means, it arguably doesn't rule out parliamentary republicanism, and Luther v Borden (1849) ruled the clause wasn't justiciable anyway. Added to that, the widespread practice in first half of the 19th century, in which governors were elected by state legislatures, was de facto the parliamentary system. I don't think there is any federal constitutional obstacle to trying this – it is just a political culture issue, it currently sits outside the state constitutional Overton window.

        While you could adopt the Australia/Canada model of a figurehead state governor/lieutenant governor with a state premier, I think just having a premier but calling them "the governor" would be more feasible

        • By SllX 2026-02-286:441 reply

          > Maybe a better answer would be for US states to adopt the parliamentary system?

          Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think it would change outcomes as much as people would think, but to scope limit this back to California again because electoral law discussions just fucking spiral anytime there’s no geographic constraint, the root of California’s lawmaking problems is that the legislature is both poorly structured and poorly balanced against the direct democratic approach we have taken for so much of our lawmaking. I don’t think that’s inherent to the non-parliamentary system we have in place, but a result of incremental rule changes stemming from decades of ballot propositions that are supposed to solve a problem, but don’t and tend to have negative knock-on effects that fly under the radar.

          Or put another way: the legislature is for legislating. It doesn’t need a competing power structure, and it doesn’t need to be balanced by anything other than a good functional Executive power and a good functional independent Judiciary. If you have that as your starting point, then maybe there’s room to discuss if there are any real advantages of a Parliamentary system instead.

          • By skissane 2026-02-287:121 reply

            A very widespread belief among political scientists is that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems in terms of stability and quality of governance. In fact, even the US State Department's own "nation-building" advisors tell other countries not to copy the US system (or at least they did prior to Trump, I'm honestly not sure if the Trump admin is sustaining that line or not)

            Presidential systems have had a terrible run if you look at Latin America. The US seemed to be an exception to the rule, but maybe recent events have shown that the US got away with a substandard political system for so long because they had so many other advantages to make up for that, now their other advantages are weakening and the US is slowly converging with Latin America

            • By SllX 2026-02-287:561 reply

              I’m aware of the history, but my point is that as a specific reform to pursue, it’s noise.

              If California moves to a Parliamentary system but maintains the popular ballot initiative that has undermined legislative power and allowed legislators to disclaim & dodge responsibility, or maintain the system of term limits I originally called out, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s our current bicameral legislature plus 5 Constitutional officers in the Executive branch or a full on Westminster Parliamentary system or anything in-between: you’ll still run into a lot of the same issues because there are no silver bullets.

              So I’m not saying it should never be up for consideration, but as a list of changes to make go? It’s too far down the list of serious considerations for me to view it as anything other than noise right now.

              • By skissane 2026-02-288:211 reply

                I guess the reality is, all proposed solutions have low odds of success, and their relative probability ranking is debatable.

                At least something like "adopt the Australia/Canada model" is easier for people to understand, because while a radical change, they can point to somewhere else that has been doing it successfully for decades. Incremental tinkering with the current rules can make unengaged people mentally switch off by comparison; radical changes can be easier to understand because they can be simpler to explain.

                I think one problem with the Australia/Canada model, is even though constitutional monarchy isn't essential to it – both countries could arguably function just as well if they were federal parliamentary republics – many Americans mentally conflate the parliamentary and constitutional monarchy aspects. If eventually either or both countries became republics, that would probably make it easier to sell the idea to Americans.

                Germany is a living example of a federal parliamentary republic – but the language barrier limits its accessibility as a model for Anglophone emulation.

                One backdoor way it might happen – although no doubt quite unlikely – would be if Alberta seceded from Canada, got admitted as a US state, but kept something close to its current parliamentary system.

                • By SllX 2026-02-2817:14

                  The difficulty level of changing the California Constitution is not high, and is dramatically lower than changing the US Constitution. The difficulty is convincing people what to change and why.

                  Flipping the table because it’s dramatic is not my first choice.

        • By interludead 2026-03-0112:29

          That's an interesting point, but I suspect the biggest barrier isn't constitutional, it's behavioral

      • By modeless 2026-02-2723:451 reply

        Your solution to politicians being out of touch with reality is to let them remain in office longer?

        • By piloto_ciego 2026-02-282:501 reply

          The real solution is that nobody should have power.

          • By BuddyPickett 2026-02-283:132 reply

            No, everybody should have power.

            • By iwontberude 2026-02-2811:04

              You are saying the same thing, I’m cracking up over here.

            • By piloto_ciego 2026-02-284:32

              nah, none of us. Power corrupts, pretty much any of it does - so basically we should only have power over ourselves is the only thing I can really think of.

      • By zdragnar 2026-02-2721:483 reply

        And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC.

        There, the professional legislators can't get anything right either.

        Do you think there's a middle ground of increasing the term limits to, say, 18 or 20 years?

        • By pwthornton 2026-02-2722:092 reply

          Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

          A much more real issue is actually age limits. If someone starts in the Senate at 40 and serves for 24 years, term limits hardly seem to be the big issue. They are retiring at a normal time, and they should still be functioning at a high level.

          Conversely, someone who gets elected at 70 and then gets term-limited at 82 is still over a normal, reasonable retirement age. The typical 82 is not in the physical or mental condition to be taking on such an important, high-stakes role.

          Both of my parents are in their mid-70s and are in very good mental health for their age. They are very lucid, and my Dad still works part-time as a lawyer. They are also clearly not at the same intellectual powers they were a decade or two ago. Some of it can even just come down to energy levels. I have to imagine being a good legislator requires high energy levels.

          Many public companies have age limits for board members, and they even have traditional retirement ages for CEOs. In the corporate world where results matter, there is a recognition that a high-stress, high-workload, high-cognitiative ability job is not something that someone should be doing well past their prime.

          Al Gore had to leave the Apple board because he turned 75. In the U.S. Senate, there are 16 people 75 and older.

          • By duskdozer 2026-02-2814:071 reply

            I don't really see why age limits would be exempt for "voters need to take responsibility for their voting".

            IMO, the real issue is that voters are coerced to accept candidates put up by the parties due to FPTP. The threat of the wrong side winning gets people to accept someone they don't want. The primary process does not need to be democratic, and the results are pressured by the future threat of losing to the other side in a head-to-head.

            • By jessicest 2026-03-014:58

              This is true: in general the best fix for US democratic systems is to learn from more functional systems from overseas.

              US is running on beta version democracy; it was wonderful for a trial run and we learned a lot from it, but unfortunately the country has been stuck without upgrades for a while. It'd be like trying to connect a Xerox PARC desktop to the modern internet.

              Obviously it's absurdly nontrivial to shift it at this point but I do agree that age and term limits both seem to be stopgap solutions due to the challenge of implementing more effective strategies.

              Consider Australia: of 226 parliamentarians, there's one aged 75+: Bob Katter.

              I'd say there's three features of the au system that keep us relatively free of the absurd incumbency advantages in USA:

              1. Compulsory voting makes it harder to solicit votes from a subset of the populace.

              2. The Australian Electoral Commission is highly trusted as a neutral body, so Gerrymandering is rare.

              3. None of our voting systems use First Past The Post; it's all ranked choice, babes!

          • By Supermancho 2026-02-2722:331 reply

            > Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

            That is one aspect, but not the important one. The most important element is anti-corruption. Legal bodies can always entrench themselves and their own interests. Term limits significantly weakens entrenchment...excepting when the same legal bodies inevitably gut it.

            • By dddgghhbbfblk 2026-02-280:232 reply

              You're saying that term limits reduce corruption?

              That's in fact not at all what the research says. There's a decent amount of research that suggests that they actually increase corruption. There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

              This is a classic one of those ideas that many people intuitively "feel" makes sense but is actually just terrible policy.

              • By Supermancho 2026-02-281:01

                > That's in fact not at all what the research says.

                > There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

                There are a lot of factors beyond term limits that influence this kind of research. The most important detail is to remember that corruption spans more than external influence. Institutional ossification has benefits and drawbacks. The drawbacks have outweighed the benefits, historically in the US and England. It was literally baked into the US Constitution to ensure this would not repeat for the US head of state. Notably the Supreme Court was baked in as a lifetime appointment. Granted, the remaining political bodies have not followed suit, I think it's clear that this has had a negative consequence due to the aforementioned entrenchment of the political parties.

                > There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

                It is incorrect to claim that is the only effect. I also don't believe that the conclusion is correct. I do believe it's closer to your initial statement.

                > it's just a way for [legislators] to not take responsibility for their voting.

                ie It shows a lack of care in executing the responsibilities of the elected position, which is why they barely do anything but campaign at the federal level.

              • By thayne 2026-02-282:271 reply

                It seems logical to me that a term limit could increase vulnerability to corruption in your last term. If you can't be re-elected, there is less incentive to be loyal to the people you represent.

                • By Supermancho 2026-02-283:09

                  The potential for corruption exists independent of term limits. "the studies" are readily available for investigation.

        • By rocqua 2026-02-2721:571 reply

          Age limits might be an alternative. Say at 65 or 70.

          That's at an age where wizened legislators can move into advisory roles, instead of needing to find a next career.

        • By SllX 2026-02-2722:281 reply

          > And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC.

          Plenty of shitty ideas are popular based on a hope and a prayer. That’s why you don’t give in to populism. If we’re to impose any kind of limits on Congress, it has to be more intelligent than term limits.

          • By jonhohle 2026-02-2723:313 reply

            How about, if your taxable income exceeds some multiple of the median income of your district, you are no longer eligible to represent them. It’s pretty amazing how much a representative’s income grows once they take public service positions.

            • By mulmen 2026-02-281:44

              This smells like funding schools based on student test results. Won't it disadvantage the most vulnerable areas? If I live in a state with some poor areas and some wealthy areas why would the most qualified people not compete to represent the wealthy areas?

              If the problem is representatives using insider knowledge to enrich themselves then just hire more Inspectors General. If the problem isn't insider knowledge specifically then make whatever allows them to get rich illegal.

            • By SllX 2026-02-281:19

              How about we stop screwing around and let becoming a legislator become an attractive & competitive job and just hold our noses at the little things that make politicians as a class generally unattractive people? Like not limitless, not with total impunity, but instead of trying to micromanage our way to perfection every fucking step of the way, we accept that politicians are going to politic.

            • By IG_Semmelweiss 2026-02-284:03

              You are going in the right direction.

              I think its more :

              if your taxable income during OR post-office exceeds (some 1,3,5 yr average) prior high watermark income, or the officeholder's salary (whichever is higher), every penny over high watermark is taxed at 99% tax rate.

              That should take care of those pesky "speaking fees" and other nonsense that makes politicians rich.

      • By martin-t 2026-02-2722:455 reply

        > professional legislatures

        That should not be a profession.

        Decisions should be made by people who are the most informed about the subject matter. By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.

        • By SllX 2026-02-281:28

          If someone can still keep getting people to vote for them, that’s not really an issue.

          We elect the way we do and empower the way we do because it empowers voters to choose on a regular recurring basis who is going to provide oversight that way. When you start screwing around with the basis tenets of electoral democracy, you distort and pervert the value of an actual legislative seat and undermine the value of holding people directly responsible through elections.

          Another good example is the ballot proposition system. Some things must go before voters—which is another separate wrong which would be righted—but apart from those, the ballot proposition also presents legislators an opportunity to outsource decision-making risk to voters where instead of having to take a chance of being wrong on a piece of legislation with a roll call vote, they can pass the risk off to State voters. If people voted on the issue directly, they’re not as empowered to hold the people who only put it on the ballot rather than making the decision as someone whose job is to make & pass legislation.

          You want legislators to be empowered to serve their role in society so that they are also taking real risks every time they take a stand on an issue that risks pissing off their constituents.

        • By drdeca 2026-02-281:45

          > By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.

          This is not true-by-definition . It may be true, but not by-definition. If there were an omniscient person, they would be the most informed about everything.

        • By mulmen 2026-02-281:47

          I used to think like this but now I'm not so sure. Representatives should represent the electorate, not special interests. If someone invents a civilization destroying macguffin they are the most qualified person on that topic but we wouldn't want them to be in charge of regulating it.

        • By intrasight 2026-02-280:17

          I agree. Limits are a feature not a bug. If they want a job for life, they should compete for civil service jobs.

        • By heavyset_go 2026-02-286:07

          Perhaps our republic should be run by philosopher kings

      • By api 2026-02-285:01

        Long term tenure won't help. Look at the Federal government. Eventually you end up with a hospice center as your legislature.

    • By 9x39 2026-02-2720:395 reply

      I’m more curious in the genesis of these laws, whether their sponsors received written suggestions or ghostwritten bills, etc. as a form of parallel construction.

      It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.

      • By carefulfungi 2026-02-2721:54

        I was curious about your question and googled. Here's the legislative history of the law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm....

        Reading the first analysis PDF:

        > This bill, sponsored by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and Children Now, seeks to require device and operating systems manufacturers to develop an age assurance signal that will be sent to application developers informing them of the age-bracket of the user who is downloading their application or entering their website. Depending on the age range of the user, a parent or guardian will have to consent prior to the user being allowed access to the platform. The bill presents a potentially elegant solution to a vexing problem underpinning many efforts to protect children online. However, there are several details to be worked out on the bill to ensure technical feasibility and that it strikes the appropriate balance between parental control and the autonomy of children, particularly older teens. The bill is supported by several parents’ organizations, including Parents for School Options, Protect our Kids, and Parents Support for Online Learning. In addition, the TransLatin Coalition and The Source LGBT+ Center are in support. The bill is opposed by Oakland Privacy, TechNet, and Chamber of Progress.

      • By tzs 2026-02-2721:253 reply

        This law doesn't do anything that prevents non-anonymous access. Here's how you would access things anonymously if you bought a new computer that implemented this.

        1. When you set up your account and it asks for your birthdate, make up any date you want that is at least far enough in the past to indicate an age older that what any site you might use that checks age requires.

        2. Access things the way you've always done. All that has changed is that things that care about age checks find out you claim to be old enough.

        The only people it actually materially affects on your new computer are people who cannot set up their own accounts, such as children if you have set up permissions so they have to get you to make their accounts.

        Then if you want you can enter a birthdate that gives an age that says non-adult, so sites that check age will block them.

        From a privacy and anonymity perspective this is essentially equivalent to sites that ask "Are you 18+?" and let you in if you click "yes" and block you if you click "no". It is just doing the asking locally and caching the result.

        • By heavyset_go 2026-02-2810:572 reply

          As with all age verification bills, the fact that developers are opened up to liability if children access content they're not "supposed to" means that facial scans and ID checks will be implemented as they currently are everywhere.

          From the bill:

          > (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

          > (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

          It's not enough to just accept the age signal, you can still be liable if you have reason to believe someone is underage based on other information.

          The cheapest and easiest way to minimize that liability is with face scans and ID checks. That way you, as a developer, know that your users won't bankrupt you.

          • By quails8mydog 2026-03-019:12

            Sounds like if the OS doesn't track anything else about the user, then it won't receive any other signals and will just use whatever was typed in at account creation.

            If websites accept this as age verification it could provide a very easy way to bypass it.

            In fact, looking at it again, point B specifically says if the "developer" has information rather than the "system" has information. So really sounds like if the developer isn't collecting logs that they can access themselves this wouldn't apply to them.

          • By tzs 2026-03-0119:15

            The cheapest and easiest way to minimize liability is not to collect any information not needed to actually provide the service you are providing.

        • By ohhnoodont 2026-02-2722:212 reply

          I agree. I feel the flow of having browsers send some flag to sites is the most privacy-preserving approach to this whole topic. The system owner creates a “child” account that has the flag set by the OS and prevents the execution of unsanctioned software.

          This puts the responsibility back on parents to do the bare minimum required in moderating their child’s activities.

          • By fc417fc802 2026-02-2722:523 reply

            What would be even more privacy preserving would be to mandate sites to send age appropriateness headers (mainstream porn sites already do this voluntarily).

            Possibly it could be further mandated that the OS collect relevant rating information for each account and provide APIs with which browsers and other software could implement filtering.

            And possibly it could be further mandated that web browsers adopt support for this filtering standard.

            And if you want a really crazy idea you could pass a law mandating that parents configure parental controls on devices of children under (say) 12 and attach civil penalties for repeated failure to do so.

            There's never any need for information about the user to be sent off to third parties, nor should we adopt schemes that will inevitably provide ammo for those advocating attested digital platforms.

            • By bryan_w 2026-02-2723:031 reply

              I think you would find widespread support from the various websites out there for this. Most porn websites today voluntarily implement some type of mechanism that advertises them as not for children.

              • By packetlost 2026-03-014:37

                The issue is how does the browser know the age bracket of the user in question so it knows to not load content with those headers? The API this bill mandates is the missing half to make those headers actually useful without specialized browsers/3rd party plugins.

            • By hirsin 2026-02-280:081 reply

              So does Google send a header for each search result when you look up "Ron Jeremy" so that some results get hidden, or does the browser just block the whole page?

              Sending all the "bad" data to the client and hoping the client does the right thing outs a lot of complexity on the client. A lot easier to know things are working if the bad data doesn't ever get sent to the client - it can't display what it didn't get.

              • By fc417fc802 2026-02-280:35

                Google would send a header that it is appropriate for all ages (I'm not sure how the safe search toggle would interact with this, the idea is just a rough sketch after all).

                When you click on a search result, you load a new page on a different website. The new page would once again come with a header indicating the content rating. This header would be attached to all pages by law. It would be sent every time you load any page.

                Assuming that the actual problem here is the difficulty of implementing reliable content filtering (ala parental controls) then the minimally invasive solution is to institute an open standard that enables any piece of software to easily implement the desired functionality. You can then further pass legislation requiring (for example) that certain classes of website (ex social media) include an indication of this as part of the header.

                Concretely, an example header might look like "X-Content-Filter: 13,social-media". If it were legally mandated that all websites send such it would become trivially easy to implement filtering on device since you could simply block any site that failed to send it.

                > A lot easier to know things are working if ...

                Which is followed by wanting an attested OS (to make sure the value is reliably reported), followed by a process for a third party to verify a government issued ID (since the user might have lied), followed by ...

                It's entirely the wrong mentality. It isn't necessary for solving the actual problem, it mandates the leaking of personal data, and it opens an entire can of worms regarding verification of reported fact.

            • By trinsic2 2026-03-013:05

              Yes this is a really simple fix. The first line if your post says it all. If they really wanted to protect children, you would put the responsibility on the services on the other end. This is about mass surveillance or disadvantaging open source solutions

          • By EmbarrassedHelp 2026-02-2723:231 reply

            If browsers are going to send flags, they should only send a flag if its a minor. Otherwise is another point of tracking data that can be used for fingerprinting.

            • By gsnedders 2026-02-286:49

              If you send a flag ever, then absence of a flag is also fingerprinting surface.

              If you imagine a world where you have a header, Accepts-Adult-Content, which takes a boolean value: you essentially have three possibilities: ?0, ?1, and absent.

              How useful of a tracking signal those three options provide depends on what else is being sent —

              For example, if someone is stuffing a huge amount of fingerprinting data into the User-Agent string, then this header probably doesn’t actually change anything of the posture.

              As another example, if you’re in a regular browser with much of the UA string frozen, and ignoring all other headers for now, then it depends on how likely the users with that UA string to have each option: if all users of that browser always send ?0 (if they indicate themselves to be a minor) or ?1 (if they indicate themselves to be an adult or decline to indicate anything), then a request with that UA and it absent is significantly more noteworthy — because the browser wouldn’t send it — and more likely to be meaningful fingerprinting surface.

              That said, adding any of this as passive fingerprinting surface seems like an idea unlikely to be worthwhile.

              If you want even a weak signal, it would be much better to require user interaction for it.

        • By decidu0us9034 2026-02-281:301 reply

          I'm not sure it's worth entertaining these hypotheticals. Just another absurd CA law that's impossible to comply with. "When you set up your account and it asks for your birthdate." What does this mean? "Setup" what account? "It" what? Some graphical installer? What if I don't want to use one? How would this protocol be implemented in such a way where it's not trivially easy for the user to alter the "age signal" before sending a request? The "signal" is signed with some secret that you attest to but can't write? So it's in some enclave? What if my smart toaster doesn't have an enclave? Does my toaster now have to implement software enclave? I'm not aware of a standard, or industry standards body, or standard specification, or implementation of a specification, around this "age signal" thing. Is this some proprietary technology that some company has a patent on, and they've been lobbying for their patent to be legally mandated? If so that's very concerning and probably has antitrust implications (it is ironic that ever-tightening surveillance of people is a downstream consequence of all this deregulation of corporate persons; fine for me but not for thee I guess). I would love to know the full story here, since this is being shopped around in several states, but I haven't seen any sort of investigative journalism about this which is disappointing. This whole thing is really curious.

          • By vineyardmike 2026-02-282:531 reply

            Most of these questions are actually answered in the law itself. You could be your own investigator in seconds.

            https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

            Your toaster is not impacted. You’re turning a law that, yes, has some open questions around implementation, into a way bigger scare and conspiracy.

            > operating system provider, as defined, to provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder, as defined, to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store and to provide a developer, as defined, who has requested a signal with respect to a particular user with a digital signal via a reasonably consistent real-time application programming interface regarding whether a user is in any of several age brackets, as prescribed. The bill would require a developer to request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

            Let’s be honest here. 99% of general purpose computing devices targeted at consumers make an “account” when you setup for the first time. Even Linux if just to name a home directory. It’s pretty obvious what an account is. Especially when it only applies to bundled app stores. What App Store has no account anyways?

            It allows the operating system to define the interface. No patent or proprietary system. No surveillance. The law says user interface. Not graphical interface. Do with that as you will. A OS producer who has an App Store probably has a graphical interface, but if not they surely figured out how to interface with users already.

            It actually requires operating systems and developers to not abuse this data or use it for anticompetitive purposes.

            There is no attestation. It’s entirely self reported and unverified.

            • By TylerE 2026-02-283:051 reply

              You should follow your own advice.

              Their definition of "app store" is a mile wide: "(e) (1) “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 that can access a covered application store or can download an application."

              Grats, github is an appstore. apt-get is an app store. You posting software on your own website is an app store.

              • By vineyardmike 2026-02-283:212 reply

                GitHub isn’t an app stores associated with an operating system though. Your personal website is most likely not in scope. You have to put all the pieces together.

                Apt… yes is an App Store run by an operating system organization (Debian org). That feels pretty unsurprising. Debian’s parent organization (headquartered in the US) probably needs to comply with this.

                • By iamnothere 2026-02-285:13

                  > Apt… yes is an App Store run by an operating system organization (Debian org). That feels pretty unsurprising. Debian’s parent organization (headquartered in the US) probably needs to comply with this.

                  And that right there is exactly the fucking problem. A zero profit collective “store” that publishes zero profit hobbyist “apps” is now going to have to invest in some kind of harebrained compliance scheme that will only grow from here.

                  In a couple of years is my “app” in Debian’s store going to require some goddamn TPS report and certification to tell California that everything is above board? It’s incredibly likely! By itself this law does nothing but lay the groundwork for regulation of “apps”, which by itself might be acceptable, but including FOSS distribution channels and hobby apps in the scope of this law is nothing short of evil. It’s laying the groundwork for a frontal assault on FOSS, and if you don’t see that then I don’t know what to tell you.

                  My guess is that Linux wasn’t extensively considered in the writing of this law, but when the next stage comes along and people start complaining, legislators will shrug and say “oh well, they need to comply”—and lobbyists for the big 3 proprietary software firms will back that position up. This is setting up a killshot for consumer Linux.

                • By NetMageSCW 2026-03-0114:30

                  Where in that definition does it say the app store must be associated with an OS?

      • By bikelang 2026-02-281:48

        > It seems all at once, everywhere that many groups that have a vested interest in forcing precedent and compliance of non-anonymous access across the computer world. It smacks of something less-than-organic.

        I think you’ve nailed it here. How many of these people campaigned on this issue? Where were the grassroots to push this? Where did this even come from?

        Somebody, somewhere - with a heck of a lot of money - wants to see this happen. And I don’t think they have good intentions with it.

      • By elfly 2026-02-284:28

        Conservatives discovered a cheat code to get: (a) people to have to identify on the computer everywhere and (b) control what they can do with and without this identification.

        Of course they are copying the play everywhere.

      • By almosthere 2026-02-2720:502 reply

        Death threats mainly. Personally I think it would be easier if they just made it so that platforms ran a tiny LLM against the content that will be posted - determined if it is a death threat, then require them to be identified before it's posted, then it would solve a lot of these problems.

        TLDR: Evil people be doxxed internally not everyone.

        • By numpad0 2026-02-2721:501 reply

          That turns jokes into contracts that nobody wants. Bad idea.

          • By Filligree 2026-02-2723:061 reply

            Maybe just don’t make “jokes” like that.

            • By numpad0 2026-02-2813:59

              I don't make such "jokes". Idiots do.

              And when the idiots do, the proposed system locks the fire door for them. That's just dangerous. We'd want them with bunch of confusing options and better illuminated de-escalation paths.

        • By bigfishrunning 2026-02-2721:152 reply

          a "tiny large language model"? lol

          • By reverius42 2026-02-281:08

            See https://tinyllm.org

            These days the name "LLM" refers more to the architecture & usage patterns than it does to the size of model (though to be fair, even the "tiny" LLMs are huge compared to any models from 10+ years ago, so it's all relative).

          • By almosthere 2026-02-2721:231 reply

            Yeah, a small one that is cheaper because they'll be processing billions of messages per year.

            • By lazide 2026-02-2721:501 reply

              Good thing all the kind people doing death threats won’t just bypass it?

              • By almosthere 2026-02-280:081 reply

                I'm totally lost here. If you don't identify, you don't post.

                • By lazide 2026-02-280:541 reply

                  Good thing no one ever breaks any rules!

                  • By BenjiWiebe 2026-02-282:421 reply

                    If a platform decides to require an account to post, or requires your message to pass an LLM sniff test before publishing it, you can break all the rules you want but your message won't be visible to others on said platform.

                    • By lazide 2026-02-2811:381 reply

                      The example given was a ‘lightweight LLM’ by the poster, which sounded an awful lot like client side?

                      If server side, you already have the heavyweight stuff going on, and yes there is no need to do all the bypassable shenanigans.

                      • By almosthere 2026-02-2817:37

                        Since that client side llm would be processing billions of messages each year on each person's laptop, lol

    • By AceJohnny2 2026-02-2720:537 reply

      > There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California

      You can remove the in California

      • By shitlord 2026-02-2722:171 reply

        Policies enacted elsewhere usually don't have the Brussels Effect.

        • By RobotToaster 2026-02-280:091 reply

          What about in Brussels?

          • By saati 2026-02-282:06

            I assume you mean EU directives and not Belgian law, and the thing is it's incredibly hard to pass an EU directive, it needs to originate in the Commission, then pass qualified majority in the Council then pass a vote in the Parliament. Nothing without a broad consensus can get anywhere near.

      • By ActorNightly 2026-02-2818:28

        The California part is partially to highlight the fact that its a very liberal state and this is the kind of laws that liberals pass, but people fail to realize that all of these laws come from Republican lawmakers, as there are plenty of right wing people in California.

      • By almosthere 2026-02-2721:281 reply

        Young people generalize everything and end up not solving problems.

        Older people have already seen all the patterns, and realize you have to focus on specifics, and that helps clean up the general issue.

        • By roenxi 2026-02-2722:031 reply

          The old people's tolerance for general problems is why the general problems persist.

          A realistic dynamic is the old people are comfortable with the general problems and have positioned themselves to benefit from them. Indeed, they solved the general problems that troubled them in their youth with political activism in their middle age. The young people have different political needs that require general problems to be solved.

          Also young people have a terrible track record of actually identifying problems, they are pretty clueless in the main.

          • By WalterBright 2026-02-281:13

            > The old people's tolerance for general problems is why the general problems persist.

            Or they just realize that the general problems are insoluble.

      • By dontblokmebro70 2026-02-2721:32

        [dead]

      • By needastiffone70 2026-02-2721:38

        [dead]

      • By _blackhawk_ 2026-02-2721:15

        this

      • By SllX 2026-02-2721:232 reply

        Yeah but let’s not and say we didn’t.

    • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-2722:164 reply

      > they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about

      While you are correct with this statement in this context, I would say it applies to most things in government in general.

      The vast majority of lawmakers have zero experience solving any real world problems and are content spending everyone else's money to play pretend at doing so.

      The reality is, most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve, after which, they blame their predecessors for all the problems they caused and the cycle continues.

      • By wredcoll 2026-02-2722:551 reply

        > The reality is, most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve

        The "reality" is that propaganda heavily encourages you to ignore the government successes and only focus on the failures. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine who benefits from that.

        • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-2723:174 reply

          > "government successes"

          Please, name for me one product or service that the US government has created, that people willingly buy, that has made your life tangibly better.

          I can list a billion made by businesses.

          Please, go for it. Just one.

          • By mbgerring 2026-02-2723:254 reply

            USPS

            Medicaid

            The National Park System

            I know that the next step is you explaining why these don’t count, or saying “wow only 3” or whatever, but

            • By palmotea 2026-02-2723:293 reply

              > I know that the next step is you explaining why these don’t count, or saying “wow only 3” or whatever, but

              Oh, there's more: Medicare, Social Security, the highway system.

              The whole food/medicine regulatory system is also a big one, and it's the reason a lot of US (and European) products like baby formula are imported into China, because they can be more trusted.

              My bet is the GP's going to weasel out using his "that people willingly buy" language. The flawed assumption there is the government should be conceptualized as just another company selling in the market, when the government's actual role is very different.

              • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-2723:554 reply

                As with anything, they are all things that could be done better by a company.

                Airlines are a great example of this. They have changed very little in the last 30 years (again, thanks to all the government regulation and red tape).

                Smartphones, TVs, (and literally anything else not in the hands of the government) has also seen rapid improvements.

                Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

                A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

                The government on the other hand, is $38 TRILLION dollars in the red.

                Yes, the things that "people willingly buy" are the literal engine that makes all of this possible. It is not the reverse.

                • By fyredge 2026-02-281:07

                  > As with anything, they are all things that could be done better by a company. No

                  > Airlines are a great example of this. They have changed very little in the last 30 years (again, thanks to all the government regulation and red tape).

                  And thanks to regulations, we have less airline accidents than ever. Private companies are more than willing to "externalise" any accidents from cutting costs otherwise.

                  > Smartphones, TVs, (and literally anything else not in the hands of the government) has also seen rapid improvements.

                  So does government funded medical research, which improves the quality of life of people corporations deem "unprofitable".

                  > Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

                  Because large corporations and rich donors lobby them to do so.

                  > A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

                  So does a government, debt only lasts as long as the lender believes in your ability to pay it back.

                  > The government on the other hand, is $38 TRILLION dollars in the red.

                  And which of the Mag7 are not in debt? I remind you that if you wish to compare the USA to companies, they are literally an entity of over 300,000 people. No company employs that many people.

                  > Yes, the things that "people willingly buy" are the literal engine that makes all of this possible. It is not the reverse.

                  No, government enforced order is what allowed the engine to exist to begin with. No one would innovate if their IP could not be protected, and we would regress back into cartels if the government could not enforce private property.

                  The prosperity of the modern world is build upon a foundation of solid governance.

                • By mbgerring 2026-02-285:24

                  No, you misunderstood me:

                  When I ship packages, I could choose to use a service other than USPS, but I don’t, because USPS is generally cheaper and more reliable.

                  I strongly prefer Medicaid to my employer-provided healthcare plans because of ease of use, and if I were allowed to I would willingly pay more money into it, either via taxes or direct premium payments, when I am making too much income to qualify.

                  I gladly give money to the NPS every year, even though I have a choice to pay for a private campground, or other public lands agencies.

                  I answered the question. You can choose to believe I didn’t all you want.

                • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:59

                  Remember how great the privately owned meat packing plants were at making sure the food was safe?

                  > Anything the government handles is always rife with overspending, inefficiency, and corruption.

                  Boy will you be surprised when you get a job.

                • By cyberax 2026-02-280:342 reply

                  Oh yeah. I feel sooooo good dealing with Comcast. At this point in life, I spent more time on the phone with Comcast support than I ever spent time in various DMV offices.

                  > A company must maintain profitability to stay alive.

                  Yeah. And once it becomes a monopoly (like Comcast), it can just keep raising prices.

                  • By cucumber3732842 2026-02-280:433 reply

                    Have you ever called the DMV? In my state it's worse than Comcast. 45min wait time when the lines open in the morning, only increasing from there.

                    I "owe" Comcast $200. They say I didn't cancel at an old apartment. I say I did. I have the email. They insist. They've sent me a letter once a year for a decade. About 2yr in it went to collections. They're still trying.

                    Imagine the consequences if I did that with government.

                    Say nothing of the fact that if I tried to pay it, Comcast would be able to take my money no problem. The government would take a check, ACH or charge me $5 to use a buggy 3rd party CC processing service.

                    • By cyberax 2026-02-281:28

                      Well, ask your state to fix the issue. Perhaps elect better politicians? The states where I lived all have online booking.

                      And their websites are well-designed and functional. There are customer support emails and phone numbers.

                      > Say nothing of the fact that if I tried to pay it, Comcast would be able to take my money no problem.

                      About that... A couple of years ago I got locked out of AT&T because I forgot to update my credit card. And I couldn't log in because it required a (you guessed it) one-time SMS password. Their "pay your bill" needed a bill number, for which I needed to log into their website.

                      Their fix? Visit the store.

                      > Imagine the consequences if I did that with government.

                      A couple of years ago I accidentally overpaid the IRS (I paid the capital gains tax twice, as it was already deducted during the sale by the broker) to the tune of $10k. A year later, they sent a letter asking me for clarifications. I called them, and they sent me a refund check.

                      > The government would take a check, ACH or charge me $5 to use a buggy 3rd party CC processing service.

                      And what's wrong with a check or ACH?

                    • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:58

                      I have called the dmv. They said enter a number and we'll call you back later, which they did. It wasn't fast but it was fairly efficient.

                      I've had the irs write me a letter saying I owed them money. They were correct and I paid them in a couple of months. It wasn't very hard.

                      I don't enjoy paying taxes but I do very much enjoy the things they buy.

                    • By alistairSH 2026-02-2812:091 reply

                      I have! I made an 8am appt (that’s when they open). They let me in the door at 7:58. I was back in my car driving home by 8:12.

                      • By cucumber3732842 2026-02-2813:35

                        And I have gone to rural DMVs and they were nice and helpful and polite. Absolutely not what most people experience just due to where population is located and how the more urban DMVs tend to be.

                        Listen, I'm sure if all you do is straight down the middle of whatever the DMV thinks a median peasant does, then I'm sure it works fine.

                        But on that same note, if all you do is sign up and then just keep paying them money forever, Comcast works fine too.

                        Neither of these organizations works worth a shit outside the default path. But only one of them will threaten to really screw up your life over it.

                  • By WalterBright 2026-02-281:261 reply

                    Comcast has a monopoly granted to it by the government.

                    • By cyberax 2026-02-282:231 reply

                      Not here. It's a natural monopoly, just like sewer lines or electric transmission.

                      Where I live now, I paid $50k to get a private fiber optics line just not to deal with Comcast anymore. There were no other options. We _might_ get AT&T fiber, eventually.

                      • By WalterBright 2026-02-282:471 reply

                        Municipalities normally grant local cable monopolies.

                        But today there are other options. Starlink, for one.

                        • By cyberax 2026-02-284:12

                          It has not been a monopoly here for the last 2 decades (at least). There also was Wave Broadband nearby they serve some high-rise buildings, I got a private business-class line from them.

                          But it was not profitable for them to expand normally. They can't offer drastically cheaper service than Comcast, the installation costs in cities are huge. I also have Starlink as a backup, and it's even slower than Comcast.

                          So yeah, government actually works better than commercial companies for most infrastructural needs. And in particular, municipal broadband is usually head-and-shoulders better than anything from large commercial companies. It has higher consumer satisfaction ratings and is cheaper on average.

              • By Dylan16807 2026-02-284:291 reply

                This discussion about the purpose of government is valid as a way to disagree with the "willingly buy" language, but it's still true that most of those examples don't answer the question and to refuse them is not "weaseling out".

                • By palmotea 2026-02-284:39

                  > but it's still true that most of those examples don't answer the question

                  That's because the question is bad. It was meant to challenge the benefit of government, and a non-answer was meant to be interpreted as "government < business." But at its core is was fundamental misunderstanding of government, so if the question was answered mindlessly, it was unfairly biased towards the asker's biased conclusion.

                  > and to refuse them is not "weaseling out".

                  It'd be weaseling out of the faults of the question.

              • By WalterBright 2026-02-281:241 reply

                > My bet is the GP's going to weasel out using his "that people willingly buy" language

                Well, they aren't willingly buying it. They are funded with taxes.

                • By wredcoll 2026-02-281:291 reply

                  People can choose not to use a lot of those things.

                  • By WalterBright 2026-02-281:49

                    Right, but they cannot choose to not buy them.

            • By WalterBright 2026-02-281:21

              USPS - is self-funded, though it is operating at a loss. It also is a legal monopoly, meaning competitors for first class mail are illegal.

              Medicaid - funded by the government, meaning people are not willingly paying for it

              The National Park System - funded by the government, meaning people are not willingly paying for it

            • By NetMageSCW 2026-03-0114:33

              The USPS is failing because people aren’t that interested in it.

              Medicaid is hardly a competitive market, but medication pricing alone says it is a failure. On Medicaid, my FIL can’t get his prescription for G7s filled by anyone.

            • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-2723:491 reply

              Every single thing you just mentioned is insolvent.

              • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:54

                Like, even if that was true, which super blatantly they are not, they are not intended to make a profit, they are intended to accomplish a goal.

          • By hash872 2026-02-2723:282 reply

            The proto-Internet. GPS. Nuclear energy. MRIs. Fracking. The Human Genome Project. Fiber optics. Optical data storage. Jet engines. Heck, the entire space industry. Lithium ion batteries. Radar. Night vision technology. Modern lower limb prosthetics. Just off the top of my head

            • By WalterBright 2026-02-281:442 reply

              Jet engines - Frank Whipple (England) and Franz Ohain (Germany) invented them. In both cases the governments were not interested in them until flying jet aircraft were demonstrated. Lockheed was ordered by the government to abandon their jet engine project and focus on piston engines instead (which resulted in the US having to get started on jet aircraft by buying British machines).

              Human genome - J. Venter was the first to sequence the human genome, privately funded.

              the entire space industry - Liquid fuel rockets were pioneered by Goddard, through private funding.

              Radar - originated from late 19th-century experiments on radio wave reflection, pioneered by Heinrich Hertz in 1886. While Christian Hülsmeyer patented a "telemobiloscope" for ship detection in 1904

              The proto-Internet - Pioneered by Samuel Morse, see "The Victorian Internet" by Tom Standage. Privately funded.

              Optical data storage - Invented by D Gregg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paul_Gregg, at a private company.

              Nuclear energy - a very long list of contributors. See "The Making of the Atomic Bomb".

              And so on.

              • By dboreham 2026-02-282:052 reply

                Whittle (Whipple is a painter) "invented" the jet engine while serving in the RAF, so technically not privately funded at the point of invention. There was private funding used later to create prototype engines.

                Quite a stretch to say the Atomic Bomb was privately funded!!!

                • By WalterBright 2026-02-282:45

                  Oh right, Whittle (my mistake).

                  The original Whittle engine was developed with private funds.

                  From "The Development Of Jet And Turbine Aero Engines" by Gunston:

                  pg 123: of which £200 came from an old lady who ran a corner shop near Whittle's parents in Coventry

                  pg 123: But a direct request to Air Ministry for a research contract in October 1936 brought flat rejection,

                  pg 124: Whittle could see that the only possible way to proceed was to take the gigantic gamble of running a complete engine.

                  pg 125: Indeed, there was little money for anything. While the RAF backed Whittle in every way they could - for example, by not requiring him to take the usual examination for promotion to Squadron Leader - the Air Ministry contributed nothing to Power Jets until May 1938, and Whittle had to watch every penny. He nearly cracked under the strain, which in fact was to get worse for seven years, not because of the Problems in developing the engine, but from the suspicion and enmity with which he was regarded by officials and manufacturers, and by the outrageous behaviour of the Company picked by the Air Ministry to produce his engine.

                  (Whittle's engine first ran in 1937).

                • By WalterBright 2026-02-282:45

                  > Quite a stretch to say the Atomic Bomb was privately funded!!!

                  It isn't possible to untangle its development and claim one or the other.

              • By elfly 2026-02-284:402 reply

                No company ever got a man to the Moon.

                Sure, some companies participated in the process. But it was a government that did it.

                It's been more than 50 years and private companies haven't been able to match it.

                The greatest technical achievement of mankind was done by a government. Private industry could, at best, help.

                Sorry all the other things you name are great. But the winner is government.

                • By NetMageSCW 2026-03-0114:37

                  Until recently, no private company wanted to go to the Moon.

                  And it is particularly ironic to select that since the government’s attempt to return is the most expensive, slowest, least tested launch system possible, and still needs help to get to the Moon.

                • By WalterBright 2026-03-012:13

                  And nobody went back to the moon.

            • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:541 reply

              You had me until fracking.

          • By hellojesus 2026-02-2820:12

            Didn't gov funded science invent MRIs?

      • By ericb 2026-02-2722:503 reply

        I see Massachusetts as sort of the non-insane liberal counterpoint to California.

        Things work here and nobody seems to be passing the "oops my unintended side effects and clueless regulations messed things up horribly." Or, if they do, it is at something like 1/10th the level.

        We didn't start warning label spam everywhere. We don't have weird propositions that are causing run-away housing prices. There aren't bar codes on our 3d printers, or cookie banner requirements on every website. Well, ok we do, but that nonsense all came in from other places.

        We did pass laws to lower PFAS/PFOAS. That seems reasonable. Government can work.

        • By cucumber3732842 2026-02-280:51

          MA legislature is too busy enriching themselves with back room dealing to f the state up too much.

          I wish I was joking. They get audited yet? Pretty sure that was a ballot measure that passed by a huge margin years back and last I checked they were stalling...

        • By wredcoll 2026-02-2722:57

          > We don't have weird propositions that causing run-away housing prices.

          Most of those are a reaction rather than the cause. People want to move to california, it creates a different set of problems for california vs Massachusetts

        • By dlev_pika 2026-02-2723:571 reply

          I like MA, but you realize the challenges are vastly different, right?

          The sheer size, economic volume and cultural diversity of CA presents a pretty unique set of issues.

          • By ericb 2026-02-280:15

            I mean, sure, but all those things I named don't seem to be scale induced? They seem to all stem from clueless regulation, which is as simple as not not signing silly laws? I'm missing where scale plays into the items I mentioned.

      • By alistairSH 2026-02-2722:362 reply

        most government "solutions" cause more problems than they solve

        Zero basis in fact. We’re in the wealthiest nation on the planet. Most of us live better than any previous generation. To claim all that success is completely in spite of government is ridiculous.

        • By SunshineTheCat 2026-02-2723:124 reply

          Are you under the impression that the government created all that wealth?

          • By Yossarrian22 2026-02-280:441 reply

            Without nukes to keep away the Soviets I wouldn’t be wealthy

            • By nozzlegear 2026-03-030:101 reply

              This but unironically

              • By Yossarrian22 2026-03-034:541 reply

                To be clear I meant this literally, I'm not sure how I could have made that more clear.

                • By nozzlegear 2026-03-0317:30

                  Ah, my bad. It read like the kind of comment that's usually steeped in sarcasm.

          • By alistairSH 2026-02-280:07

            Not at all. But it enabled it. Or at worst didn’t prevent it.

          • By elfly 2026-02-284:51

            Have you ever looked at a dollar bill in your life.

            Who do you think printed it. Who signed the bill?

            The US can just print money and receive goods in exchange of literal paper. Or just put an extra zero in a bank account and receive goods in exchange.

            And if a certain yahoo decides they want in the money printing scheme...who do you think is going to send the goons with guns to prevent the government monopoly in creating literal wealth.

          • By heavyset_go 2026-02-2811:18

            The government literally enforces capitalism with guns and bombs lol

        • By rurban 2026-02-283:34

          Wealthiest nation? More like unwealthiest of all nations.

          U. S. by far the largest current-account deficit (over $1.2 trillion).

          U.S. has the largest goods trade deficit (over $1 trillion).

      • By Hammershaft 2026-02-2722:22

        It's true, and yet there are real market failures that even a very ineffective government can improve on dramatically, like innovation & research output via basic science.

    • By palmotea 2026-02-2723:251 reply

      > - Microstamping requirements for guns—printing a unique barcode on every bullet casing (Glock gen3 cannot be retired, thus, the auto-mode switch bug cannot be patched...)

      I don't know much about guns, but I assume that would be on the hammer? Couldn't you remove that "microstamping" by lightly filing down the hammer or just using it a bunch and causing some wear?

      • By marssaxman 2026-02-280:051 reply

        For most modern guns, it would be the firing pin, also called the "striker". Nobody manufactures microstamped guns, but if they did, the striker is a $20 part you can replace in ten minutes - or you could just spend half an hour on target practice at your local range, because 200 rounds are apparently enough to wear the etching down to illegibility.

        • By jrnichols 2026-02-285:111 reply

          They know this, and they know the technology just isn't there. But that's their goal - to make gun ownership as difficult and expensive as possible.

          I think they've learned from the anti-gun lobbyists and are now pushing to end anonymity on the internet the same way.

          • By iamnothere 2026-02-285:17

            This is exactly it, it’s death by a thousand stupid cuts by throwing everything at the wall and hoping that something sticks. They know that many of these laws won’t pass constitutional scrutiny, but by the time they make their way to the Supreme Court, the damage will be done and 10 new stupid laws will take their place. The anti gun lobby has been doing the exact same thing for years.

    • By onlyrealcuzzo 2026-02-2723:372 reply

      How long until we have to scan our assholes to use the coffee machine?

      • By genxy 2026-02-280:19

        Do you have a term sheet?

      • By 4k93n2 2026-02-288:05

        we might as well just do a coffee enema at that point

    • By nipponese 2026-02-280:252 reply

      It's not a coincidence the equally clueless citizens are asking for these laws. Like in business, sometimes it's better to do "some thing" when you're not smart enough to do the right thing. Maybe you get there, maybe you don't, but inaction is not looked upon kindly.

      • By pennomi 2026-02-282:191 reply

        What citizens are asking for age verification? I have met exactly ZERO people who want this. It’s only the authorities who want it.

        • By NetMageSCW 2026-03-0114:41

          Do these groups count as the authorities?

          Children Now (co-sponsor). International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (co-sponsor). AAPI Equity Alliance. California Parents for Public Virtual Education. Parents Support for Online Learning. Protect Our Kids.

      • By shevy-java 2026-02-2818:33

        I've not met anyone privately who would be in support of this.

        There is a layer of indirection at work here. Fake-democracy.

    • By michaelbrave 2026-03-016:55

      I'm still in the process of having to write letters to lawmakers about the stupid 3D printer law, now I'm going to have to write letters for this stupid thing too. Like how hard is it to take a day to have a conversation with someone that just knows a little bit about these things, a hobbyist even. The minimal amount of question asking, hell they could even ask an LLM and it would still give a better answer.

    • By WaitWaitWha 2026-02-2722:551 reply

      i did not even think of that! As the current law reads, will smart devices with OSes require age verification? Many IoTs are just tiny Linux versions running on a small processor. This makes all smart GE washing machines, dryers and refrigerators illegal in California.

      come to think of it, maybe there is something good about this law. :D

      • By RobotToaster 2026-02-280:21

        Not just that, but the the copy of Minix in the intel IME of every intel processor.

        Not to mention all the printers, routers, etc that run freertos/thread x/vxworks.

    • By burnt-resistor 2026-02-2720:351 reply

      Not just 3D printers but all subtractive CNC machines too.

      • By lazide 2026-02-2721:52

        Frankly, look at how hard it was to make a sten. Even just a lathe and a welder is likely sufficient.

    • By dataflow 2026-02-284:53

      > Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

      What part of the bill makes you think this would apply to a microwave? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

      And what part makes you think you need to verify your age, as opposed to just specifying it? Nobody is requiring any verification. The only requirement is on there being an interface for you to input whatever age you want to input.

    • By rustystump 2026-02-284:32

      There is a name for it, feel good policies and cali is not unique.

      People who dont understand the problem must pass a solution that makes people feel good. Clean needles, homeless hotels, etc. If they dont make things worse, that is a win.

    • By dongguanxianhao 2026-02-289:02

      The printer spyware has an interesting backstory.

      A Spanish venture-backed firm is developing some vaporware called Print&Go and has convinced the NY DA's office that it'll permanently solve the Luigi problem.

      The best part? This company is drooling at the possibility of getting a permanent rent-seeking license for printers they didn't design, for nonexistent vaporware software that reduces its capabilities.

      They frame it as "enhancing 3D printer capabilities," the way a slaveowner would frame putting chains on a slave's wrists as an "employee retention innovation."

      Is everyone involved with promoting this software and these laws lying? Of course.

      https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/08/any-user-who-has-a-3d-p...

    • By hintymad 2026-02-280:321 reply

      So essentially California is becoming more and more like EU? It's curious to see how it pans out. Maybe EU's model turns out to be better than a more laissez-faire world like the US. Who knows.

      What's even more curious is that the California voters seem not care at all. As long as the government can collect more taxes with more altruistic slogans, the voters will stay happy.

      • By shevy-java 2026-02-2818:34

        Which EU law mandates age verification on my personal computer at home exactly?

    • By Aerroon 2026-02-284:49

      I'm starting to get more and more behind the idea that maybe lawmakers need to be legally accountable for bad laws that they make.

    • By Bender 2026-02-282:00

      Modern technology is simply not compatible with clueless politicians

      He may be our next president and this becomes an executive order.

    • By wtallis 2026-02-2720:511 reply

      > Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

      Anyone buying or selling a microwave with an app store deserves this mess.

      • By mikestew 2026-02-2721:15

        Downvoter (and GP) didn't RTFA. This is addressed in the parts of the law TFA quotes.

    • By interludead 2026-03-0112:26

      The irony is that the only entities capable of complying are the large centralized platforms

    • By harrall 2026-02-281:38

      No it’s a mindset thing.

      Some people think all problems should be fixed with regulation.

      Some people think all problems should be fixed with free market / responsibility.

      California and liberals tend to lean to the former. A place like Texas and conservatives tend to lean to the latter.

      I think both camps are crazy because it’s a case-by-case basis where you need to consider second and third order effects. But man talk to a die hard regulation supporter or die hard free market supporter and you just want to say “the world isn’t just simple rules like that.”

    • By randomNumber7 2026-02-2721:12

      Technology is currently worring for a lot of people so the moronic response is to simply reject it.

    • By michaelteter 2026-02-2722:561 reply

      You can single out California, but I assure you there are asinine laws on the books in most states.

      What it takes to become a “successful” politician is typically not what it takes to define good policy.

      • By pklausler 2026-02-2723:17

        Democracy rewards mass appeal, and that in turn encourages demagoguery and gives a platform for stupidity. It's been an unavoidable problem with the system since Athens.

    • By idle_zealot 2026-02-2722:214 reply

      What I'm reading of this law is that it requires OS developers to require users select their age (really their age bracket) when making a user account, and an interface for applications/websites to read that user-provided field. I.e. not age verification, but just a standard way to identify if a user is on a child account. If that understanding is correct, how is this bad at all? It's a way to put to rest people's concerns and pearl-clutching over children accessing adult content without every individual app and service provider contracting with Palantir to scan you and guess your age. Instead they can just read the IsAdult header and call it a day. What's the cost to user-freedom? You have to be presented a Date of Birth field or I Am an Adult / Teen / Child selector when setting up a device... a thing that every operating system impacted by this law already does.

      • By hilsdev 2026-02-2722:371 reply

        Why should it be law? I am a developer in California, and a long time Linux nerd. If I were to release a hobby on my GitHub for fun, without age verification, am I now subject to fines? Imprisonment? Why should their be a legal requirement?

        • By idle_zealot 2026-02-2722:54

          As with any law like this, it should apply to systems made for normal end-users with over some minimum number of users. If your hobby Linux distro picks up a million home users then yeah, you're responsible for making it suitable for purpose for as long as you're distributing it. It's the same with accessibility requirements, safety requirements, labor laws, etc.

          If California starts knocking on the door of random distros and hobby OSes designed for power users or servers with 2000 average monthly downloads then I'll go to bat defending them.

          Though to re-iterate, I'm pretty sure the requirements here are for asking a user to set an age, not to do age verification, so if you did want to comply it would mean adding a Date field to your setup flow and then wiring that up to applications that ask for it.

      • By heavyset_go 2026-02-2811:261 reply

        It's not enough to just accept the age signal:

        > (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

        > (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

        Developers are still liable if they have reason to believe someone is underage, even if the age signal says otherwise.

        The only way to truly minimize that liability is forcing users to scan their faces and IDs, that is why age verification systems are already implemented that way.

        • By idle_zealot 2026-03-014:561 reply

          Thanks for actually reading the law for me! Yeah, that's pretty bad. I'm totally on board for requiring a common interface for platforms to indicate and check for self-reported age, but legally requiring operating systems to doubt and override user settings is unambiguously anti-user and authoritarian.

          • By akdev1l 2026-03-0312:58

            I think it’s meant for the case where a child is using an adult’s user account but maybe their own account within that

            eg: you let your child use your laptop for a bit to play Roblox. The child logs into the Roblox account which has their real age. As per the law Roblox is required to use their inner age signal instead of the OS provided one.

            I suppose it could also go the opposite way: if your steam account is 18 years old by itself then probably we can treat you like a grown up and ignore the OS provided signal.

            I guess the latter form would be quite rare for anyone to implement.

      • By MangoCoffee 2026-02-2723:551 reply

        How is this good at all for a free society? You are basically making a "what about the children?" argument. its the parent job to protect their children. why should anyone suffer this b.s.?

        • By filleduchaos 2026-02-282:411 reply

          How is it bad for a free society?

          • By juris 2026-02-286:201 reply

            not to be flippant, i am answering your question with the seriousness it deserves:

            it is because any government regulation over user identifiers in an operating system (and left to grow and fester according to political wont) will chill free speech (code, data) and assembly (the ability to share code and data with others unsupervised).

            • By filleduchaos 2026-02-2814:241 reply

              That's nice but doesn't actually answer the question that I asked, which is how this (i.e. requiring local user accounts to specify an age range on creation) is bad for a free society.

              Simply stating something you apparently see as self-evidently true in the abstract doesn't really make much of a point. Especially when said something is unironically just "but the slippery slope!"

              • By juris 2026-02-2818:22

                since you’re lost (now I’m being flippant to match your tone):

                age is an identifier as part of a ‘digital fingerprint’. a fingerprint is used to track you. your fingerprints are attached to the things you criticize online. you must temper your criticisms. end of story.

                your ‘o noes another slippery slope arg’ falls flat on its ass when you look outside at what your government is patently and evidently doing. you paying any attention to the anthropic ‘mass surveillance’ canary? how about the ice app? threats to legally prosecute protesters of ice? no? god, you really need to be led to water huh.

                maybe look up how the persona company aggregates data for the government and get back to me as to whether you think that has a chilling effect on speech and assembly (when droves of people are leaving discord)

                ah maybe too “abstract” for you. How about this:

                a/s/l? :3 don’t worry, im just a dev, i won’t bite. unless of course, you disagree with me o3o

      • By bawolff 2026-02-2722:241 reply

        All the better to do targeted advertisments and underdeveloped minds!

        • By idle_zealot 2026-02-2722:562 reply

          This is exactly the sort of infrastructure that would make it super easy to pass a law banning tracking and advertising to minors. Once every platform can trivially detect when they should turn off the ads there's no reasonable counter-argument about privacy or feasibility.

          • By bawolff 2026-02-282:54

            Have we banned advertising tk minors on tv shows aimed at minirs? Are barbie/action hero/etc commercial showing kids having fun with barbies on channels whose primary demo is children no longer a thing?

            Technology has never been tge limiting factor. Politicak will is.

          • By sigio 2026-02-280:01

            Fine by me... instantly setting my age to whatever it is that disallows all ads ;)

    • By amelius 2026-02-2723:251 reply

      At least they did not invent cookie banners.

      • By Joker_vD 2026-02-280:441 reply

        Yeah, the commercial firms invented them all on their own just to keep tracking customers and oversharing whatever data they gather with random third parties while still getting to complain about stupid laws that require them to do so [0].

        [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46521179

        • By nozzlegear 2026-03-030:14

          The EU's own government agencies use cookie banners on their websites.

    • By eleventyseven 2026-02-2722:431 reply

      Headline is wrong, and you didn't read the article. There is no verification requirement. You are a bad HN poster and should feel bad.

      All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. You can lie, just like porn sites today. I thought HNers wanted parents to govern their children's use of technology with these kinds of mechanisms.

      > There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place."

      There's an obvious theme with HN posters about politics—they make cheap drive-by comments about regulations they have zero clue about, based on articles they haven't actually read, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've shown why I'm smarter than all these politics people."

      • By gatlin 2026-02-2722:502 reply

        > All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot.

        This is the age verification requirement which you rudely and incorrectly said doesn't exist. Nothing is done with the data (for now) but age is in fact verified on the assumption that the user doesn't lie.

        Instead of lengthy condescending missives about the behavior of other users, you should instead write "I'm sorry for being negative and bringing down the quality of discussion."

        • By wredcoll 2026-02-2723:042 reply

          Selecting an age choice from a drop down is in no way verification.

          The original post was low effort flame baiting. There's an argument to be made that it should be ignored, but it's hard to say.

          • By mistercheph 2026-02-280:32

            Ah we should be happy about a bad law because it's enforcement mechanism is weak? That's twice-bad: undermines the strength and meaning of Law, and aligns Law with the bad.

            When the law and it's execution are undermined and weak, it becomes the cudgel of fickle changing power, i.e. it is applied selectively and it means nothing to people except when they are being beat in the head with it, at which point they only regret having been caught, successfully undermining the social and political fabric of a nation.

            Having a bad law with a weak enforcement mechanism isn't quite the thing to be boasting about you seem to think it is.

          • By gatlin 2026-02-2723:374 reply

            If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

            • By wtallis 2026-02-281:421 reply

              You seem to be operating with an unreasonably weak definition of "verification". What this bill is requiring is that app stores or operating systems ask for age information. Verification would mean doing something to verify the accuracy of the information provided, not merely receiving a response to the question. "Age verification" is not a synonym for "having age-based restrictions".

              • By gatlin 2026-03-041:391 reply

                Nope, just the normal one. It asks for your age and gates further interactions based on the answer, no? That's verification.

                • By wtallis 2026-03-046:461 reply

                  > and gates further interactions based on the answer

                  No. The OS does literally nothing with the age information other than water it down to a few pre-defined age brackets and pass that on to applications. There's nothing in this law that says any action has to be denied. It's information collection and reporting, with no verification, accepting the information reported by the user as-is. The law does not require the information to be true or accurate, and explicitly removes liability from app developers when their users lie about their age.

                  Even applications don't need to do anything with the age information, unless there's a different law already on the books saying something needs to be age-restricted. And in those cases, getting the information about whether to apply restrictions from the OS instead of however they're currently getting age information is not "verification".

                  "Verification" necessarily implies at least two pieces of information or steps in the process: first, an assertion of something as fact, then something to confirm that fact. This law omits the second step. There's no confirmation.

                  • By gatlin 2026-03-0413:56

                    You seem to be passionate about your pedantry and I'm not so sure whatever.

            • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:25

              The bill attempts to move age related signals from sending a scan of your passport to facebook to your own operating system attesting something.

            • By calf 2026-02-280:321 reply

              Why do I keep proposing things but they fail to exist and I can't ignore my failures?

              • By gatlin 2026-03-041:39

                That sounds like a question for a psychologist or clergy member.

            • By eleventyseven 2026-02-2815:071 reply

              Hey gatlin, are you going to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of the word "verification"?

              Just delete your account.

              • By gatlin 2026-03-041:52

                You seem to be under the impression that you have authority over me. Fascinating.

        • By eleventyseven 2026-02-2815:081 reply

          Gatlin, you need to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of "verification". This is truly embarrassing for you. It really brings down the quality of the discussion.

          • By gatlin 2026-03-041:40

            I don't need to do anything. You however should stop condescending and issuing commands to other people.

    • By Joker_vD 2026-02-2723:171 reply

      > Microstamping requirements for guns

      Eh, sounds kinda reasonable. Ammo already has unique serial numbers embedded in the butt of every cartridge (in some countries, not sure about the US), and guns do leave somewhat unique marks on the bullets upon firing so... sure, why not. Surprised it took that long TBF, the necessary technology has been commercially available since the early 90s, I think?

      > 3D printers should have a magical algorithm to recognize all gun parts in their tiny embedded systems

      Yeah, this one's seems unnecessary. Is weapon manufacturing without a license a crime? If yes, then whoever 3D-prints a gun can be prosecuted normally.

      > Now, you need to verify your age... on your microwave?

      Or on your gas stove. A travesty, really: I was taught how to operate a stove when I was in the second grade and never burned any houses down, thank you very much.

      • By LooseMarmoset 2026-02-2723:321 reply

        The micro stamping law is in no way reasonable because removing the micro stamping from the end of a firing pin is laughably trivial. The only people who won’t do this are people who weren’t going to break the law in the first place.

        Even people who didn’t want to break the law might find themselves on the receiving end of law-enforcement if the firing pin wears such that the micro stamping is no longer identifiable.

        The micro stamping law does nothing to prevent the flow of guns to people who should not have them, and does everything to prevent the use or purchase of guns by people who can lawfully own them - which is the whole point of a law like this. The people who make these laws are well aware of this.

        The age verification law, coupled with the proposed hardware attestation that our good friend Lennart poettering is working on will ensure that anonymity on the Internet is gone. This is precisely what lawmakers are aiming for. And just like the micro stamping law, the intent of the law is not the literal word of the law.

        • By dataflow 2026-02-281:361 reply

          > The micro stamping law is in no way reasonable because removing the micro stamping from the end of a firing pin is laughably trivial. The only people who won’t do this are people who weren’t going to break the law in the first place.

          I'm curious, so if (when?) California ends up successfully hunting down some criminals with this, what is your new position going to be? They were going to get caught anyway, or something like that?

          • By kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2026-02-283:051 reply

            It'll never happen. As op said, it's laughably trivial to remove, and thus criminals will remove it.

            Legitimate gun users will, at best, use their weapon in self defense, in which case they'll be sitting there waiting when the police arrive, so no need for microstamping.

            The "crime of passion" so popular in TV shows are few and far between, and there's usually a huge amount of other evidence.

            • By knorker 2026-02-2812:10

              I think you're overestimating the intelligence of most criminals. And their gun logistics discipline.

              If it were possible to do, it'd help.

              Also, removing the marking mechanism would be a process crime. Process crimes are very useful for catching criminals.

              Are you against serial numbers on guns too? You can always file those down.

    • By johnbarron 2026-02-2721:13

      [dead]

    • By johnea 2026-02-2720:464 reply

      I'm, again, glad to run linux. The distro I run has no affiliated online "account" at all, and I would expect this exempts it from the requirement.

      I'm no democrat, although I'm sure as hell no republican, and as a resident of the state, I'm also a routine critic of the California state government.

      I agree that a lot of their activities are indeed, performance art in nature.

      However I do agree with the identification requirements on guns and ammo.

      You can't shoot someone with a computer, no matter what OS you run.

      The idea that lethal weaponry is the same as any other consumer product is just not accurate.

      • By anonym29 2026-02-2721:072 reply

        It's about as easy to restrict the proliferation of firearms and ammunition as it is to restrict the proliferation of open source software. Anyone can make functional firearms out of supplies from any hardware store, this is true regardless of how many laws you pass. Look at the weapon that was used to assassinate Shinzo Abe. That was manufactured and used in a country with gun control laws that basically make California's gun control look indistinguishable from Texas. No number of laws have ever or will ever stop criminals with a rudimentary grasp of basic physics and basic chemistry.

        You can't put the genie of firearms back in the bottle any more than Hollywood can put the genie of p2p file sharing back in the bottle. Trying to do so is like trying to unscramble eggs. It doesn't matter how valid your desires or justifications for attempting to so are, it's an act of banging your own head against the cold, hard wall of reality.

        • By collingreen 2026-02-2721:321 reply

          It's a logical mistake to say that because an extremely motivated person can still cause harm somehow that implies no regulation or policy can have any positive impact anywhere.

          I don't have a stance here on what "the right" policies around gun control are but it is clearly a much wider field than just a preplanned assassination with diy parts.

          A non-exhaustive list of a few very different scenarios that are all involved with anything touching or rejecting gun control:

          - highly motivated, DIY-in-the-basement assassination plots like you mentioned - hunting for food - hunting for fun - wilderness safety - organized crime and gang related violence - mass shootings at things like concerts, sporting events, colleges. Sub point of mass shootings at schools where the law requires children to be. - gun violence involved with suddenly escalating impromptu violence like road rage and street/bar fights - systematic intimidation / domestic terrorism of particular groups or areas - gun related suicides

          All of these are very very different. None of them have perfect answers but that doesn't make thinking about it "an act of banging your own head against the cold, hard wall of reality" nor does it make anyone interested in working on some of these problems naive or stupid like you imply.

          If you're being earnest or maybe jaded, I'd say dont give up hope and don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

          If you're just being a dick then so be it, maybe someone else gets something out of this comment.

          • By tzs 2026-02-2722:20

            > It's a logical mistake to say that because an extremely motivated person can still cause harm somehow that implies no regulation or policy can have any positive impact anywhere

            That kind of mistake is common here, but I don't think it is due to a failure of logic. I think it is something deeper.

            I've noticed that people who have worked deeply and/or a long time as developers tend to lose the ability to see things as a continuum. They see them as quantized, often as binary.

            That's also why there are so many slippery slope arguments made around here that go from even the most mild initial step almost immediately to a dystopian hellscape.

            This is prevalent enough that it arguably should be considered an occupational hazard for developers and the resultant damage to non-binary thinking ability considered to be a work related mental disability with treatment for it covered by workers compensation.

            A way to protect against developing this condition is to early in your career seriously study something where you have to do a lot of non-binary thinking and there are often aren't any fully right answers.

            A good start would be make part of the degree requirement for a bachelor's degree in computer science (and maybe any hard science or engineering) in common law countries a semester of contract law and a semester of torts. Teach these exactly like those same courses are taught in first year law school. Both contracts and torts are full of things that require flexible, non-binary, thinking.

      • By jeffbee 2026-02-2721:58

        This doesn't have anything to do with democrats and republicans, considering that this bill passed unanimously through every committee and both chambers.

      • By SoftTalker 2026-02-2721:04

        Political office in general attracts the sort of people who like the "performance art" parts of it. It doesn't attract the sorts of people who like "getting things done" because the political process by design moves at a snail's pace, and if you actually solved problems you would remove issues run on in the next campaign.

      • By ChrisMarshallNY 2026-02-2722:32

        > You can't shoot someone with a computer, no matter what OS you run.

        No, you can just target-lock them. The computer database (and now, LLM) is probably the biggest threat to freedom in existence. You can keep your popgun. They'll know where it is, and come with bigger ones.

        China be doing some pretty heavy-duty damage with computers, but age-gates won't stop them.

    • By mmooss 2026-02-2722:532 reply

      I think they demonstrate a welcome and sophisticated understanding of technology. Their solution to age verification maximizes privacy by not sending any data off the computer besides a simple signal of age category (if I understand the design). They show more sophistication than the parent commment:

      > 3D printers should have a magical algorithm to recognize all gun parts in their tiny embedded systems

      Color scanners and printers have long had algorithms to recognize currency and prevent its reproduction, implemented with the technology of decades ago. It seems relatively simple to implement gun part recognition today, especially with the recent leap in image recognition capability.

      (Rants and takedowns, IME, may entertain fellow believers, but signal a comment that's going to go well beyond any facts.)

      • By xomiachuna 2026-02-2723:161 reply

        3d shape classification is different from matching a set of well-known, mostly fixed patterns (like eurion constellation) necessary to detect currency.

        With 3d shapes of non-governmental origin this is at best difficult and at worst intractable. Consider the fact that many parts of a gun can be split into multiple printable pieces to be later assembled, making it very nontrivial to decipher the role of the shape.

        With currency, the government has the controls for the supply of the target shape (it can encode hidden signals onto banknotes) and effectively controls the relroduction side (through the pressure on printer manufacturers). But it cannot control the supply of gun-part-shapes (it is not the only source for it), and since the problem is likely intractable - neither can it enforce the control on the 3d printing side.

        Paper money being almost non-fungible is a great achievement, but is it as easy to make any mesh nonfungible as well?

        • By mmooss 2026-02-2723:261 reply

          It's certainly harder, I agree. We have highly sophisticated, non-deterministic image recognition. We don't have to be perfect to have a significant impact, and to stop the 99.x% of amateurs.

          > Paper money being almost non-fungible is a great achievement

          Going off on a tangent: Many people in technology and in the public look at cash as backward, boring, even socially embarassing technology. I think few it's amazing technology, an incredible hack: tech we struggle to implement in computers is implemented highly successfully and reliably in a piece of paper.

          • By frumplestlatz 2026-02-2723:38

            We also don’t have to forcibly insert nanny software into every 3d printer in the first place.

            Not doing anything and preserving maximum agency is an entirely valid choice.

      • By justsomehnguy 2026-02-2723:25

        > It seems relatively simple to implement gun part recognition today, especially with the recent leap in image recognition capability

        And it's sits fine with you because you are the one who wouldn't pay the price for this "simple image recognition capability". Except you would pay of course, indirectly but at least you wouldn't know for sure so your conscience would feel at ease.

  • By cjs_ac 2026-02-2717:0712 reply

    Ignoring all the tedious 'no, you're a bad person for having different priorities and beliefs to me' comments that this will inevitably inspire, I have to ask: why does the operating system need to be involved in this? The intended target of the regulation seems to be app stores.

    Someone has fallen victim to Politician's Logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vidzkYnaf6Y

    • By davorak 2026-02-2718:142 reply

      > why does the operating system need to be involved in this?

      The goal in my mind is to have an account a parent can setup for their child. This account is set up by an account with more permissions access. Then the app store depends on that OS level feature to tell what apps are can be offered to the account.

      Let say the the age questions happen when you install the app store. That means if you can install the app store while logged in as the child account the child can answer whatever they want and get access to apps out side of their age range. The law could require the app to be installable and configurable from a different account then given access or installed on the child account, however at a glance that seem a larger hurdle than an os/account level parental control features.

      The headline calls this age verification, but the quote in the article "(2) Provide a developer who...years of age." Make it sound way different and much more reasonable than what discord is doing.

      I would much rather have OSs be mandated with parental control features than what discord is currently doing. I am going to read the bill later but here is how discord age verification could work under this law.

      During account creation discord access a browser level api and verifies it server side. discord no knows if the OS account is label as for someone under 13 years, over 13 and under 16, over 16 and under 18, or over 18. Then sets their discord account with the appropriate access.

      No face scan, no third party, and no government ID required.

      • By beej71 2026-02-2718:451 reply

        > The goal in my mind is to have an account a parent can setup for their child. This account is set up by an account with more permissions access. Then the app store depends on that OS level feature to tell what apps are can be offered to the account.

        That sounds like an OS feature that parents would like to have. Probably has some market value. Maybe just let the market figure that one out.

        Or, we could have an overbroad law passed that torpedoes every open-source OS in existence. If I were MS, Google, or Apple, that'd be a great side benefit of this law. Heck, they probably already have this functionality in place.

        The problem here is legally-mandated age verification, not where it is placed (although forcing it into all OSes is absolutely ...). The gains are minimal for children and the losses are gigantic for children and adults. I'm not keen to have children avoid blisters by cutting off their feet.

        Put control back with the parents. Let them buy tech that restricts their children's access. This law doesn't protect children from the mountains of damaging content online.

        And let all the adults run Linux if they want to without requiring Torvalds to put some kind of age question in the kernel and needing `ls` to check it every single run.

        • By davorak 2026-02-2719:17

          > That sounds like an OS feature that parents would like to have. Probably has some market value. Maybe just let the market figure that one out.

          If there was a competitive market for OSs this probably would work, but we do not really have that. Getting the market to be competitive likely either takes considerable time, or other forms of government intervention. If there really was a competitive market then this would have been a solved problem ~15-20 years ago since parents have been complaining about this for ~25-30 years at this point.

          > Or, we could have an overbroad law passed that torpedoes every open-source OS in existence. If I were MS, Google, or Apple, that'd be a great side benefit of this law. Heck, they probably already have this functionality in place.

          I do not think the law does that. Either a additional feature making age/birth date entry and age bracket query available, or indicated the os is not intended for use in California, both seem to let developers continue along like normal. edit Or, I think, indicate that it is not for use by children.

          > The problem here is legally-mandated age verification, not where it is placed (although forcing it into all OSes is absolutely ...). The gains are minimal for children and the losses are gigantic for children and adults. I'm not keen to have children avoid blisters by cutting off their feet.

          In this case the mandate is entering an age/birth date at account creation where you can lie about said age/birth date. The benefit is the ability of an adult to set up parental controls for a child account.

          > Put control back with the parents. Let them buy tech that restricts their children's access. This law doesn't protect children from the mountains of damaging content online.

          This puts control in the parents hands. When they set up their child's account they can put in their child's age, or not, they can make it an adult account.

          > And let all the adults run Linux if they want to without requiring Torvalds to put some kind of age question in the kernel and needing `ls` to check it every single run.

          So from the literal reading of the law the age checks are only required when "a child that is the primary user of the device". It does not need to effect accounts where the primary user is not a child. Nor does it seem like any application needs to run the check every time the application is launched.

          The law unfortunately does require:

          > (b) (1) A developer shall request a signal with respect to a particular user from an operating system provider or a covered application store when the application is downloaded and launched.

          So in the case where a child is the primary account/device user. The app needs to request the signal at least once when first launched, though it is not required to do anything with it. Delegating that to the package manager would make sense, but this part of the law should be modified, apps that can not use the signal for anything should not be required to request it, 'ls' for example.

      • By why_at 2026-02-2721:35

        I agree. The headline says "all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup", which is pretty inaccurate.

        It's just asking for some OS feature to report age. There's no verification during account setup. The app store or whatever will be doing verification by asking the OS. Still dumb to write this into law, but maybe not a bad way to handle the whole age verification panic we're going through.

    • By Sophira 2026-02-2722:151 reply

      I think the answer is quite simply: Follow the money. General-purpose computing is scary to big, soulless corporations. They want you to rely on them, not to be able to do stuff yourself. (They want to keep that power for themselves.)

      Age verification is the quickest road to ending general-purpose computing, because it plays on people's knee-jerk emotions. It won't do it by itself, but it'll goes a long way towards it.

    • By packetlost 2026-02-2721:361 reply

      Because it's the lowest common denominator between the user and every online interaction. The bill basically says provide a date-of-birth as metadata to accounts and provide an API to query the age bracket, not even the age, of the user to applications. It's a privacy-aware, mostly reasonable approach that shifts responsibility to the owner/administrator of a device to enforce it. It's basically just mandating parental controls.

      • By zeta0134 2026-02-2721:474 reply

        I'm trying to understand how this is even a bad thing. Where is the privacy invading verification? Surely a given OS can implement the API response however it wants? If you're root, tell me your age. If you're not, (a child account), the admin (their parent) sets the age. Seems fine?

        • By decidu0us9034 2026-02-282:26

          Well the problem is, there is no consensus standard. The onus is on every individual vendor to figure out how to comply. And it's so poorly written that there is no clear path to compliance. Even attempting to comply is burdensome and subjects you to a lot of legal risk. Only the largest vendors can afford to take on this risk. For others, the only winning move is not to play. Classic regulatory capture.

        • By Veserv 2026-02-2722:002 reply

          Even ignoring everything else, at a minimum it is backwards.

          There is no reason to tell the application, and by extension their developers, how old the user is. The application should tell the user what bracket it is appropriate for and then the operating system could filter appropriately without any of the user’s identifying information leaving their system.

          This is also technically superior because it moves the logic for filtering out of being custom implemented by each and every single application to a central common user-controlled location; you do not have to rely on every application developer doing it right simultaneously.

          • By packetlost 2026-02-2722:302 reply

            It's a lot easier to add an API that's opt-in for an application that needs it. What's the appropriate way an OS should handle an application that doesn't declare this new property? Fail open? Fail closed? It would quickly turn into a mess. IMO it's better to do it this way because the applications that need it (browsers, chat clients, etc.) will use it to provide legal shielding. This isn't a technical problem they're trying to solve, it's a legal liability one. I generally like this approach, but I think there's no reason to mandate that an application use the API, just mandate that if they do they are considered to have real knowledge of the age range of the user in question. If you provide the API, the incentive to use it is already there for the applications it's needed for the most.

            • By Veserv 2026-02-2722:50

              So a application that wants to filter will categorize their services privately and then write custom filtering logic, but will not just categorize their services publicly? That is nonsense.

              And your point about fail open versus closed also makes no sense since if there are zero repercussions to not writing filtering logic then nobody would even bother. If there is liability, then obviously everybody will fail closed and every application developer needs to evaluate and change their application to only allow acceptable usage. This is much harder if they have to write custom filtering logic instead of just publishing their data categorization.

            • By ndriscoll 2026-02-281:12

              Or just do what reasonable states do and create liability for distributing child inappropriate things to children, and require distributors to use a commercially reasonable way to validate age. The law doesn't need to say specifically how to do it, and it certainly doesn't need to mandate things on unrelated third parties like OS vendors and device manufacturers. The people who want to distribute adult content can work with OS vendors to develop acceptable liability shields for themselves.

          • By packetlost 2026-03-015:27

            > The application should tell the user what bracket it is appropriate for

            How does this work with applications that have a wide array of content of varying appropriateness, for example web browsers? The obvious thing to do is for sites to self-report for 18+ content and have the browser query the OS using this newly mandated API and refuse to download/show the associated content. You really need both sides here for this to work well.

        • By Muromec 2026-02-2721:55

          Well, it's not a bad thing. And if you can root your own computer, that's adult enough

        • By bitwize 2026-02-2723:181 reply

          Y'all are like Dilbert with the shock collar on, "It's not so bad." It's requiring all operating systems, apps, and online services to add age checks. It adds friction to the process of developing stuff. If there's something you do not want to do especially in California of all Goddamn places (swear to God, Wozniak would be spinning in his grave if he had one) it's add friction to the software development process with government-mandated code paths. But what do I know. This is a site actually called Hackernews, where the answer to all large-scale social problems is "that's why we need more government regulation".

          • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:00

            Like, literally none of those sentences are accurate. It's kinda impressive.

            I do wonder who benefits from all the propaganda causing this kind of kneejerk reaction though.

    • By adastra22 2026-02-2720:571 reply

      Companies like OpenAI are advocating for this because it shifts the burden of responsibility off them. They don’t have to age verifying Microsoft is handling that for them.

      • By leptons 2026-02-2721:033 reply

        As a startup owner, if there has to be age verification, then I'm all for doing that at the OS level. As a human with privacy concerns, I'll continue using Linux.

        • By asyx 2026-02-2721:261 reply

          I think doing this on an OS level might be the most privacy focused way to do this but the issue is that this is not going to be the way this is implemented.

          Like, I’m not American and in Germany we have ID cards that actually have your age encoded on an NFC chip in the card and an ID number that encodes the age. Like, age is part of the ID number and checksum.

          You could totally do all of this age verification offline on device and just expose an API that offers the age of the user to applications. You’d never need to talk to the internet for this, the API just says if you are a minor or adult, the browser can pass that to websites who don’t need to collect personal data and everything is fine.

          But that’s not going to happen. It’s gonna be some AI facial recognition kinda garbage that is gonna send your face in every angle to Apple or Microsoft or another third party.

          As is common these days they are going to try really hard to absolve you as the user of any responsibility for the sake of protecting kids so they can’t let this be a simple offline thing where your personal information never ever have to leave the device because what if kids find a way around it? Well the obvious answer is don’t let your kids just use a computer without supervision but if people would do that we’d not be in need of this garbage anyway.

          • By wredcoll 2026-02-280:01

            > Well the obvious answer is don’t let your kids just use a computer without supervision

            have you literally ever met a kid?

        • By adastra22 2026-02-2723:441 reply

          Why do you think you will still be able to install Linux?

          • By Dylan16807 2026-02-284:431 reply

            Whatever you're talking about there has effectively nothing to do with this law.

            • By adastra22 2026-03-020:01

              It very well might. We don't know. Secure boot enforcement of OS that comply with this requirement is not part of the law, but it is not clear how this law will be interpreted by regulators. There are certainly lobby interests that would prefer that outcome.

        • By NewsaHackO 2026-02-2721:122 reply

          So basically, you have no morals? Weird thing to admit online, but whatever.

          • By leptons 2026-02-2722:07

            That's a really random take on my comment. I'm not sure where you got "you have no morals" from my comment, but maybe you are trolling me?

            I'm not the one making laws about age verification, so I'm not sure how you get off blaming me for anything.

          • By lovich 2026-02-2721:261 reply

            You’re on hacker news, a double digit percentage of posters think that doing whatever you can get away with is moral.

            Look at the thread on Block’s layoffs while they are profitable.

            • By NewsaHackO 2026-02-2721:321 reply

              I know, but it's just weird that there are people who have such strong conviction that they would risk their reputation, livelihood, or lives for it. Then there are people like above who, even though they know it is a huge privacy violation, they are willing to back it because it would make their business a little more profitable. Just boggles the mind.

              • By leptons 2026-02-2722:08

                Where the hell did I ever say I backed any of it? You are making up shit in your head that simply is not there. Maybe you need a reality check, or go back to reddit.

                What I did say was:

                >if there has to be age verification

                That is far, far different than saying I want that shit. I do not make the laws, and I wouldn't vote for it either, so please, get your head out of your ass.

    • By etchalon 2026-02-280:04

      The operating system needs to be involved because its the easiest set of actors to penalize for non-compliance.

      There are essentially two desktop operating systems, Windows and macOS. Linux is a decimal point and too fractured to worry about.

      There are essentially two mobile operating systems, Android and iOS. And while Android is fractured, Google still has reasonable control they can exert.

      This is (weirdly) the smart way to do this type of law.

      Make the consumer OS providers add an age signal. That property can be bound to an account with the inability to change it.

      Behold, "universal enough" parental controls which will require only a handful of lawsuits to litigate.

    • By shiandow 2026-02-2810:20

      Arguably the operating system (or potentially the user-agent) is the exact place to do this.

      What I don't get is why it can't just all be client side. An app will just signal "I am going to show 16+ information" and the OS will either show it or not show it. No need to communicate anything.

      Giving people the choice to limit a device for their children is okay by me.

    • By michaelt 2026-02-2718:342 reply

      > why does the operating system need to be involved in this?

      Well, the politicians probably meant to say “Apple, Google, Microsoft, plus maybe Sony and Nintendo”

      i.e. the companies that already have biometrics, nigh-mandatory user accounts, app stores linked to real identities, parental controls, locked down attested kernels, and so on.

      If phones had workable parental controls that let parents opt their kid into censorship, that’s better than the give-your-passport-to-the-porn-site approach the UK have taken.

      Of course if they have applied it to every OS, not just the big corporate-controlled options, that’s a dumb choice.

      • By beej71 2026-02-2718:47

        > Of course if they have applied it to every OS, not just the big corporate-controlled options, that’s a dumb choice.

        I guess we'll just have to trust that our legislators are technologically savvy...

      • By decidu0us9034 2026-02-282:421 reply

        The law defines an operating system provider as "a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general computing device." If the intent were to target mobile vendors or app store vendors, I would be fine with it, but that's not the text. Of course it's the case that US lawmakers often write incoherent or extremely onerous legislation and then turn around and say, like, "Oh that's obviously not what we actually meant. We don't know what any of this stuff is, it just sounded good."

        • By efreak 2026-02-287:23

          So are cellphones and game consoles general computing devices? What about servers? Raspberry pi?

    • By bo1024 2026-02-2721:321 reply

      I don't know, but arguably the OS version is better for privacy, as each app can just trust the signal sent by the OS instead of collecting a bunch of personal/biometric data.

      • By autoexec 2026-02-2721:372 reply

        until they decide that the OS now needs to collect a bunch of personal/biometric data to avoid people lying about their age or tricking the OS into sending a different signal than the OS should.

        • By intrasight 2026-02-281:08

          > until they decide that the OS now needs to collect...

          It doesn't. The device (not the "OS") is registered with government authorities. The device is associated with a single human for the purposes of age verification. And it's a one time action at the time of association.

        • By subscribed 2026-02-282:48

          So many words for....

          > Android

          > iOS

          > MŚ Windows

          :)

    • By interludead 2026-03-0112:44

      Probably because the OS is the only layer that's both upstream of the app store and (in some ecosystems) in a position to provide a standardized, system-level signal

    • By perching_aix 2026-02-2718:03

      Because that's the first layer that deals with user accounts, and subsequent layers commonly base off of identity information stored in there. Just like how and why every other shared interface exists.

    • By kjkjadksj 2026-02-2817:03

      The goal is to lock down anonymous computing and increase control of government and reach of the surveillance state. It isn’t to save little Billy from seeing a titty.

    • By fuzzy2 2026-02-2717:57

      It's not just local apps that are potential consumers of this information. Websites would also be interested.

      The "why" is also clear: deflecting/shifting responsibility.

HackerNews