5 ms·

Keep repeating those talking points, we all know what this is really about. It’s bad enough as it is, and it’s the foot in the door for much worse. Before now,

Keep repeating those talking points, we all know what this is really about. It’s bad enough as it is, and it’s the foot in the door for much worse. Before now, nobody has ever tried to legislate how an OS should work. This is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

gzread 8mo ago
How has HN gotten to this point where citing the actual text of a proposed law is downvoted while wild speculation is not? There are already laws about OSes, that they shouldn't spy on you and so on.
- iamnothere 8mo ago
  Feel free to cite an extant American law that explicitly defines how an OS should behave. You won’t find one. Again, this is unprecedented.
  - gzread 8mo ago
    The ADA?
    - iamnothere 8mo ago
      Where does it explicitly mention operating systems? Ok, so you’ll say that it just applies to operating systems even though it’s not explicitly mentioned. Show me where the ADA has been used successfully in a lawsuit against an OS developer for the construction of their OS. I’ll wait!
      - gzread 8mo ago
        Show me where the California age attestation law, or any other law you don't like has
        iamnothere 8mo ago
        (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. (2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application. (f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application. (g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. ... 1798.501. (a) 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: &c. So yes, OSes are mentioned directly. The lawsuits will only come after it goes into effect.
        gzread 8mo ago
        > Show me where the [law] has been used successfully in a lawsuit against an OS developer for the construction of their OS
        iamnothere 8mo ago
        > Where does it explicitly mention operating systems?
        gzread 8mo ago
        I think you are backing away from the standard of evidence you yourself set.
dd8601fn 8mo ago
I don't know what you mean about "talking points". That's how the IL type proposal works for OS age reporting. It's self-attestation of age brackets of under 13, 13–16, 16–18, and 18+. Feel free to tell me what you think I got wrong, as I'd like to know. The text of the bill is available. SB3977. I've read it mirrors the California one. Google, Meta, etc all supported it.

gzread 8mo ago

How has HN gotten to this point where citing the actual text of a proposed law is downvoted while wild speculation is not? There are already laws about OSes, that they shouldn't spy on you and so on.

iamnothere 8mo ago
Feel free to cite an extant American law that explicitly defines how an OS should behave. You won’t find one. Again, this is unprecedented.
- gzread 8mo ago
  The ADA?
  - iamnothere 8mo ago
    Where does it explicitly mention operating systems? Ok, so you’ll say that it just applies to operating systems even though it’s not explicitly mentioned. Show me where the ADA has been used successfully in a lawsuit against an OS developer for the construction of their OS. I’ll wait!
    - gzread 8mo ago
      Show me where the California age attestation law, or any other law you don't like has
      - iamnothere 8mo ago
        (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. (2) “Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application. (f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application. (g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device. ... 1798.501. (a) 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: &c. So yes, OSes are mentioned directly. The lawsuits will only come after it goes into effect.
        gzread 8mo ago
        > Show me where the [law] has been used successfully in a lawsuit against an OS developer for the construction of their OS
        iamnothere 8mo ago
        > Where does it explicitly mention operating systems?
        gzread 8mo ago
        I think you are backing away from the standard of evidence you yourself set.

dd8601fn 8mo ago

I don't know what you mean about "talking points". That's how the IL type proposal works for OS age reporting. It's self-attestation of age brackets of under 13, 13–16, 16–18, and 18+. Feel free to tell me what you think I got wrong, as I'd like to know. The text of the bill is available. SB3977. I've read it mirrors the California one. Google, Meta, etc all supported it.