9 ms·
Colorado Adds Open-Source Exemption to Age-Verification Bill
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- iamnothere 5mo agoIt’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license. Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled How is this different from any disclosure, signage or notice requirement?
- iamnothere 5mo agoSo you are fine with the government mandating that authors include certain things in their creative works? Why not require all books to begin with the sentence “America is the greatest nation in the world”? Or requiring endorsement of a particular political party or politician? Or requiring a “stolen land” acknowledgement? Edit to respond to dead comment: MPAA and ESRB ratings are voluntary. Ever heard of “unrated” films?
- sieabahlpark 5mo ago[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> So you are fine with the government mandating that authors include certain things in their creative works? No. This is a non sequitur. > MPAA and ESRB ratings are voluntary Okay? Cigarette-package notices are not. All manner of required disclosure packets are not.
- iamnothere 5mo agoOperating systems are not cigarettes or storefronts. Maybe you’ve never written code, but done properly it’s certainly a creative act. In the US we don’t allow laws that regulate the creative output of authors, filmmakers, painters, sculptors, or other such artisans. (That is, outside of “obscenity” laws that are constantly shrinking in scope as courts rightly reject most cases.) Perhaps there is a difference when it comes to operating systems that provide built in “stores” with a monetary exchange function. This could be like building a moving sculpture that’s also a vending machine. The vending machine portion might be regulated under commercial laws depending on the level of craftsmanship and the mood of the court. A mass-produced sculptural vending machine is almost certainly subject to standard regulation even if it looks nice. A bespoke college art project may or may not be (although in any case the artist needs to pay their taxes). The law regarding creative projects is fuzzy and complicated.
- calvinmorrison 5mo agocompelled speech, freedom of speech, association, etc all died with Goldwater. It's over bubba, the government is just thinking up new ways to use it.
- throwaway85825 5mo agoMeta is behind this.
- rezmason 5mo ago[citation requested]
- jofla_net 5mo agothis was posted last month https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_billion_in_nonprofit_grants_and_45/ https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...
- Aunche 5mo agoMeta has recently been successfully sued for harming children. They are naturally pursuing the easiest path to remove themselves from liability. If you don't trust an age signal that a user chooses on their own at during os setup that can legally only be used for age verification purposes, then you're certainly not going to trust whatever age verification method Facebook will use as an alternative.
- userbinator 5mo agoOpen, closed, doesn't matter. Just say no.
- kelseyfrog 5mo agoPropose a workable alternative for parents and then we'll talk.
- jemmyw 5mo agoEngage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do. If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.
- kelseyfrog 5mo agoThat's the option we have now and it's not working. Please suggest and alternative that works.
- geoffmanning 5mo agoMaybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.
- kelseyfrog 5mo agoI'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
- mmastrac 5mo agoMaybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
- kelseyfrog 5mo agoI can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
- ranger_danger 5mo ago"Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction" That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.
- aiiane 5mo agoAlso not a lawyer, but from what I understand typically open source license restrictions are on redistribution - there's nothing preventing you from modifying something for personal use in more or less whatever way you want.
- ranger_danger 5mo agoI should not have paraphrased... it says "TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT RESTRICTION". The way I interpret that is that redistributing cannot be restricted either, which wouldn't work for say, the GPL, as far as I understand it.
- 9dev 5mo agoThat indeed seems to rule out most open source licenses actually; one or another restriction, like including the license or not modify the license, will be in conflict. I’m pretty sure this sloppiness in phrasing is on purpose.
- em-bee 5mo agothat's a very cynic take. it's the same as the tiring old argument that the GPL is not free, because true freedom should allow you to do whatever you want. but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy. if you take the argument to the extreme then only public domain code would be exempt. clearly the lawmakers are aware of open source and free software licenses and would not make a stupid blunder to only allow public domain operating systems which nobody is using, if they even exist. the license can't be modified anyways, that's a feature of copyright. a license may allow combination with code that has a different license, but the original code is still under the original license. so if i build a program that includes MIT or BSD code and GPL code, then the combined result is under the GPL, but the original MIT code is still MIT or BSD. both licenses require that the license notice may not be removed. i can rip out the GPL code and distribute the rest under MIT again. if it was possible to actually modify the license then i could not do that.
- homo__sapiens 5mo agoZuck is a fake geek
- zzo38computer 5mo agoI think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption. (As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)
- Bilal_io 5mo agoThis is the "lesser evil" trick politicians use to silence the opposition.
- shrubble 5mo agoIt is not trustworthy full stop. A simple amendment passed the next year can change it.
- em-bee 5mo agosure they can, but they would have to justify that change, and we have a better argument to oppose such a change. better than had they never added an exemption in the first place.
- shrubble 5mo agoI reject the idea outright because I have no desire to negotiate with crocodiles over my being eaten last :-)