> I wonder why they didn't do it?

"We tried nothing and it didn't work."

> They must just be a bad, warmongering people.

Oh wait, the other side is though, so that justifies everything. Convenient.

> The Iranian government

Yet when you drill down to actual public opinion the picture is more complicated. It's almost as if you tried something you could have a measurable impact there. Political pressure has been known to change regime positions before.

You might even consider showing Palestine some extremely inexpensive good will as a softening gesture towards opening dialog directly with Iran. The great part of diplomacy is you can actually say the quiet part out loud without shame as you work towards peace. "We're changing our policy on Palestine as a means of opening dialog with Iran." Now you have international pressure on your side as well.

> It's not OS age verification.

The law specifically says your OS has to implement this API. It burdens my OS vendor with adding this. In this case, that's me, since I roll my own linux.

> That will get provided to app stores and probably browsers.

And how will they behave when my *OS* decides not to provide that signal? Which is what's going to happen since there's no way in hell I'm playing along with this garbage.

> is so that a parent can give their kid a PC and set an age on the user account

You're telling me there isn't any software which does this already? That are no third party packages a parent can buy to achieve this? Aside from that you're missing the blindingly obvious, without an audit trail, none of this matters. The third party software can actually do that. This cockamamie nonsense can't.

> You are already being limited from accessing certain sites

Oh yea? Which ones? From my perspective this has never happened.

> because those sites are going to ask you to provide an ID.

That's on them. That's a choice they have to make in the market. Perhaps that will allow a competitor to provide the same service, with better safety, and no ID checks. I will refuse to use any service that requires this.

If you have to show your ID to enter, that's a seedy place, and no where children should even be near. Why does social media need the same restrictions as pornography, drugs and hard liqour? Why is facebook even trying to profit off of this gap?

> If I'm remembering what I read, it actually bars them from trying to determine your age in other ways.

I believe you have remembered incorrectly. Please show me where this is a part of actual law. Then please explain to me why this is a good thing.

> the signal passed from OS to software

That's the problem. I don't care what it conveys or of it's "de-anonymizing" or not. If the software wants to know it can ask me directly. I don't want a law that requires my OS to provide _any_ information about me. Full stop.

It's just not _meaningful_. It does nothing. It does not protect children. It lets seedy backalley social media networks to profit off of their corruption. This is morally bent.

Next door? No. In the neighborhood? Undoubetly.

No.

I do not want an "API" in my OS to reveal information about me. I do not want this to operate without my consent. I do not want to be limited from accessing certain sites because I refuse to implement this.

No age verification at the OS level. If Meta needs to verify ages for their _profitable_ business, that's entirely _their_ problem. Get your hands off my equipment.

So it seems normal that a bunch of politicians, in the current climate, got together and decided that the weakest form of age verification imaginable absolutely had to get passed everywhere?

That's incomprehensible to me.