3 ms·
It's the State's responsibility once something affects enough people. That's why a law like this makes sense but should exempt OSes under some number of users.
by idle_zealot 5mo ago
It's the State's responsibility once something affects enough people. That's why a law like this makes sense but should exempt OSes under some number of users. It's not great that we have such a harsh divide between "do whatever you want so long as not too many people are bothered" and "alright now the people have spoken and it's a State/national law," but it's the system we have and better than the people only getting a say with their wallets.
- true_religion 5mo agoI think it only affects devices that are sold. So free software, you install yourself won’t meet that theshold.
- kakacik 5mo agoWell it may end up with some porn-hungry kids compiling their own Unix core build on their own, not a bad even if unintended direction
- mhotchen 5mo agoThis conversation makes me wonder if age verification at the system level could be considered an externality for its cost to society as a whole, and the solution be to collect tax from any commercial sale of a desktop OS that doesn't implement a defined open standard. If there is any money raised it could be used for eg. education pieces on harm and harm reduction Maybe it doesn't work in this case, but I think you both make great points. Just feel like there must be a way of bridging this gap