this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
96 points (97.1% liked)
Linux
63468 readers
509 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is perhaps a controversial statement from someone who is fed up with all this age verification stuff, but having the user age be set on account creation (without providing ID or anything dumb like that) doesn't seem that bad.
It just feels like a way to standardise parental controls. Instead of having to roll their own age verification stuff, software like Discord can rely on the UserAccountStorage value.
If it were possible to plug into a browser in a standard, privacy conscious way, it also reduces the need for third party parental control browser extensions, which I imagine can be a bit sketchy.
OSes collect and expose language and locale information anyway. What harm is age bands in addition to that?
I thought similarly that a minimally privacy invasive set up like sending a "I'm over/under 18" signal that didn't require verifying government ID/live face scans/AI "age approximation" would be a good idea, but I now think that this system would fall over very quickly due to the client and server not being able to trust each other in this environment.
The client app, be it browser, chat, game etc, can't trust that the server it is communicating with isn't acting nefariously, or is just collecting more data to be used for profiling.
An example would be a phishing advert that required a user to "Verify their Discord account", gets the username and age bracket signal and dumps it into a list that is made available to groomers [1].
Conversely, the server can't trust that the client is sending accurate information. [2]
Even in the proposal linked, it's a DBUS service that "can be implemented by arbitrary applications as a distro sees fit" - there would be nothing to stop such a DBUS service returning differing age brackets based on the user's preference or intention.
This lack of trust would land us effectively back to "I'm over 18, honest" click throughs that "aren't enough" for lawmakers currently, and I think there would be a requirement in short order to have "effective age verification at account creation for the age bracket signal" with all the privacy invasive steps we all hate, and securing these client apps to prevent tampering.
At best, services wouldn't trust the age bracket signal and still use those privacy invasive steps, joining the "Do Not Track" header and chocolate teapot for usefulness, and at worst "non verified clients/servers" (ie not Microsoft/Apple/Goolge/Meta/Amazon created) would be prevented from connecting.
The allure of the simplicity and minimal impact of the laws is what's giving this traction, and I think the proposals are just propelling us toward a massive patch of black ice, sloped or otherwise.
Having said that, I can't blame the devs for making an effort here, as it is a law, regardless of how lacking it is.
[1] I realise "Won't someone think of the children!" is massively overused by authoritarians, give me some slack with my example :) [2] Whilst the California/Colorado laws seem to make allowance for "people lie", this is going to get re-implemented elsewhere without these exemptions.
I can see the slippery slope argument, however it overlooks the fact that countries/states are already willing to implement the non-privacy systems.
If these systems take off, it will give privacy advocates the ability to point at California's system and say "look, they have a system that is as effective as the strong assurance stuff but without the people sending you angry emails."
I see it as almost a "reverse slippry slope". A way for people to push for less strict verification.
Yeah countries and states are relatively happy with the non-privacy systems as they "work".
My principle problem is I cannot see this system "working" to the satisfaction of the seemingly incessant voices who don't want a child to see something that they shouldn't, where "something" is nebulous and seems to change with who you ask and at regular intervals.
I'm probably very jaded - I'd love to be proven wrong and this system works as a least worst option, but I'm in the UK and we recently seem hell bent on choosing the worst option offered.
My condolences - I'm in the UK as well and wouldn't wish that on anyone.
If I may offer an alternate perspective: Politicians don't actually care about any of this, they just want votes. California's system allows them to say "Look, we solved child safety!" without having to deal with people complaining about privacy. If there's an existing system in place, it's easier for politicians to say "we already solved this!" and ignore those voices.
It also puts the guilt on parents. If this system in place, and you complain about your child seeing tiddy online, the question is going to be "why didn't you set the age correctly then?".
... Of course this might be me just being optimistic. I really hope we, as a species, grow out of this new age puritanism and government overreach.