Okay you are ready to take a stand for freedom!

You are going to use an OS that isn’t going to bend the knee and comply with age verification laws. I solute you, comrade!

Here are the likely consequences of your choice:

The Feds aren’t coming after you. You aren’t going to be out on a watch list.

What will likely happen is that if you try to log into your Facebook account you will get a message that says “Your Operating System is not currently supported. Your user experience will be limited to Groups labeled “Everyone”.”

That’s basically it. Your personal user experience will be limited to “kid friendly” areas of the Internet. (Same with apps and games.)

That’s the real driver of these laws. Facebook and other app producers know that the days where they can just shrug off child predators using their products is coming to and end. Regardless of your opinion on age verification is as a solution, child predators are a real world problem and it’s not just the parents fault. The platforms have some responsibility too.

Which is exactly what Facebook and the others specifically don’t want -responsibility for their own platforms. That’s why they are pushing for these laws that off load their responsibility onto the OS makers. Then they can just say “Oh, we don’t have any responsibility for this child being abused in our platform. We asked the OS what the user’s age was and the OS reported 18+. What else could we have done?”

So, that’s the consequence if you choose to use an OS that refuses to comply. You’ll just be relegated to the kid friendly version of website, games, and applications.

(On the other hand, if your OS chooses to falsely report to a website or an app an age for a child that is abused, then the OS should also be held responsible. But at that point you can go ahead and blame the parents too for letting their child use an OS that isn’t safe for them to use.)

  • 1dalm@lemmy.todayOP
    19·
    1 day ago

    It’s not the job of the [Catholic Church] or the [Boy Scouts] to monitor and control a kids access.

    Yes it is. It absolutely is. If you provide a service, you should responsible for the safety of that service, especially if you are providing and advertising that service to kids.

    • non_burglar@lemmy.world
      3·
      8 hours ago

      You are misleading yourself.

      Consider a vehicle. We understand that there is a threshold of age and responsibility to operating a vehicle safely, but we don’t hold the vehicle manufacturer responsible for driver error if the driver is under the age of licensing.

      You are suggesting that an os maker can be held responsible for user decisions, which is both unenforceable and legally unsound.

      • 1dalm@lemmy.todayOP
        12·
        8 hours ago

        Correct. Right now the OS maker is not responsible. That exactly why Meta is pushing so hard to change the laws to make them responsible.

        Your analogy is a good analogy. In your car analogy, today, no one blames the car manufacturer for a drunk driver, but we do blame bars and bar tenders. In many states, bars have to be licensed and if the bar tender allows some one to get drunk and drive home the bar and the bar tender can be held liable. This situation would be like if bars got together to lobby state and national governments to make it so that the car manufacturers had to install breathalyzers in every car so that the bars could reduce their liability and responsibility.

        • non_burglar@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 hours ago

          I don’t think you’ve thought this analogy through, or else you haven’t had much experience with bars. Drinking establishments have a duty to “cut off” intoxication, but that ends at the door.

          The us military has a history of being very interested in recruits from tweens and teens online. And obviously the us military isn’t alone in this.

          If what you are suggesting is true, that “it’s all OK because protect the kids”, it would be fairly awkward to explain this practice.

          • 1dalm@lemmy.todayOP
            11·
            7 hours ago

            I didn’t understand your disagreement. Yes just like a bar shouldn’t be responsible for a person that gets plastered drunk after they leave, Facebook shouldn’t be responsible for the actions of a predator that goes to a porn website to lure kids. Just like the Catholic Church shouldn’t be responsible for a public school teacher that rapes her students at school. The only times any of these organizations are responsible is when the abuses happen while using their services.

            I don’t get why this is controversial.

            I can’t speak for the military’s recruiting practices. Yes, I fully agree that the military’s recruitment practices are very predatory, and should be reigned in. Politically, I personally think “enlistment” shouldn’t be an option at all. It should be random draft. Every year the military should tell Congress how many new recuits they need, and Congress should approve a draft of 18 year olds for that many new recuits. The draft should be random, with no deferments or other ways out of service other than health reasons as determined by a military physician. (But that’s way off topic.)

            • non_burglar@lemmy.world
              1·
              5 hours ago

              My disagreement with your posture is your implied insistence that protecting children is the only goal of these proposed laws. The military example should have shown you that this is obviously not the main goal of these laws, but you seem to want to ignore this.

              Most ppl agree with protecting kids from mature content.

              This law(s) is framed in a way to be unenforceable, yet the laws are coming regardless. This would suggest there is another reason for the laws.

              • How would the law work for new Linux server rollouts?
              • Over 18 only, no learning Linux in school?
              • Change working age laws so no under 18 can administer servers?
              • Consent on every automated install? How would that work?
              • If servers are excluded from the law, will ppl just use a server install and add a DE on them after?
              • How do we validate who is actually at the keyboard? (Hint, you can’t)

              Are you seeing how unworkable this proposed law is yet?

              We don’t prevent kids from going into hardware stores that carry dangerous tools, we assume children are accompanied by a responsible adult. This is no different.

    • Unusable 3151 ⁂@lemmy.ml
      2·
      1 day ago

      At its core, neither an operating system nor a browser is a service. They are effectively data that the users are serving to themselves. There are certainly some operating systems and browsers that contain the ability to connect a service as a plugin or (I would say) maliciously include a connection to a service by default such as targeted advertising, but those services are neither the OS nor the browser.

      • 1dalm@lemmy.todayOP
        16·
        1 day ago

        Right. That’s why Facebook is trying to get the laws changed so that it’s the OS that is responsible.

        There is a big conspiracy behind this, it’s just not a shadowy-government one.

        • Unusable 3151 ⁂@lemmy.ml
          2·
          1 day ago

          I don’t know if you meant to, but you completely ignored the point. Your comment directly quoted @Dirk@lemmy.ml and edited out “OS” and “browser”. You then began talking about how “services” have an obligation.

          EDIT: I jumbled usernames. My bad.

          • 1dalm@lemmy.todayOP
            13·
            1 day ago

            Right, I was making the point that just like the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church can’t just shrug off their responsibility, online orgs don’t get a free pass either.

            But if these laws are passed, then they will get a free pass, and just point at the OS maker as the problem. Be mad about that and I’m on your side.