3 ms·

I strongly disagree. There are no kids in my household, and no one else ever uses my devices, so the idea that I need to prove that I'm not a kid for me to be a

by saghm 3mo ago

I strongly disagree. There are no kids in my household, and no one else ever uses my devices, so the idea that I need to prove that I'm not a kid for me to be able to pay bills or file taxes on a stock device is ridiculous.

dash2 3mo ago
I don't understand the force of that argument. Where is the "so" coming from?
- saghm 3mo ago
  I don't understand what's hard to understand. Regulation that affects people and devices that have no risk of being used for the purported thing that's supposed to be protected against is not well-scoped.
  - dash2 3mo ago
    Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?
    - saghm 3mo ago
      > How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it? How do I propose the government know if I have kids? I'm pretty sure they already know that I don't?
      - dash2 3mo ago
        I don't think the government knows if a given random IP connection has kids, or is you.
        saghm 3mo ago
        My entire point is that there's absolutely no need to know if a "random IP connection" is a kid when there are so many mundane reasons to use the internet that aren't objectionable for the hypothetical child who the connection might have behind it. It's the equivalent of making anyone walking into a grocery store show their ID in case they happen to buy alcohol later. I don't drink alcohol either and have no need to buy it, and I'd be similarly incensed if I got carded every time I walked into a store to buy eggs or milk.
    - regularfry 3mo ago
      Backwards. The government knows who has kids because they do things like issue birth certificates and operate state schools. In a lot of places it's legally very difficult not to be listed as a parent on government records. So why should I have to prove I don't have kids when the government can know I'm not on any of those lists?
      - manwe150 3mo ago
        The government departments know those things because the parents registered on those lists. It doesn’t automatically just “know”, and that info is historically not usually shared between government departments
        regularfry 3mo ago
        That doesn't make the burden of proof magically mine.
delusional 3mo ago
Is anyone proposing age verification to file taxes? I'd hope you already have to provide some sort of stronger proof of identity to file a tax return anyway.
- saghm 3mo ago
  That's exactly my point; websites that already have absolutely no threat from having kids access them are literally unavailable due to the operating system put up a block that isn't necessary due to a hypothetical kid using the device to access an entirely different hypothetical website. The regulation is absurdly overbroad for what it's trying to actual protect against.
  - delusional 3mo ago
    I don't know what regulation you're talking about. Nothing of the sort is being proposed in the part of the world PHK occupies.
    - saghm 3mo ago
      The comment I was responding to said this: > A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents, but require restrictions for consumer devices (smartphones, laptops). Maybe even enable age restrictions by default, block replacing the OS or the firmware, and only allow it once the age was confirmed. If you think that this statement is too broad for this thread, I don't understand why you only have issue with my direct response to it. It seems like your issue is with the parent comment I replied to for not being on-topic enough.
- mr_toad 3mo ago
  You don’t even need to be an adult to pay taxes, at least in some countries. I’ve been doing my own taxes since I was 14.
armchairhacker 3mo ago
"Age restriction" can be implemented where stock devices are completely unrestricted. For example, just with better parental controls and education: children don't have access to property, so the parent takes their device and enables the parental controls, but you own your device so leave them disabled. And this wouldn't affect Linux or FOSS: on a child's device their parent installs either a proprietary OS or a FOSS with parental controls, but again, on your device you install whatever you want.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- saghm 3mo ago
  That's not what the comment I responded to was proposing: > Maybe even enable age restrictions by default, block replacing the OS or the firmware, and only allow it once the age was confirmed. Having an extra hurdle before installing Linux would be an awful secondary effect for this type of regulation independent of whether the check itself is already objectionable (which I always obviously think it is, although obviously plenty of people also don't)
  - armchairhacker 3mo ago
    You're right. I don't see why a device would be age restricted by default, when practically always an adult has first access (too expensive)

by saghm 3mo ago

dash2 3mo ago

I don't understand the force of that argument. Where is the "so" coming from?

saghm 3mo ago
I don't understand what's hard to understand. Regulation that affects people and devices that have no risk of being used for the purported thing that's supposed to be protected against is not well-scoped.
- dash2 3mo ago
  Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?
  - saghm 3mo ago
    > How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it? How do I propose the government know if I have kids? I'm pretty sure they already know that I don't?
    - dash2 3mo ago
      I don't think the government knows if a given random IP connection has kids, or is you.
      - saghm 3mo ago
        My entire point is that there's absolutely no need to know if a "random IP connection" is a kid when there are so many mundane reasons to use the internet that aren't objectionable for the hypothetical child who the connection might have behind it. It's the equivalent of making anyone walking into a grocery store show their ID in case they happen to buy alcohol later. I don't drink alcohol either and have no need to buy it, and I'd be similarly incensed if I got carded every time I walked into a store to buy eggs or milk.
  - regularfry 3mo ago
    Backwards. The government knows who has kids because they do things like issue birth certificates and operate state schools. In a lot of places it's legally very difficult not to be listed as a parent on government records. So why should I have to prove I don't have kids when the government can know I'm not on any of those lists?
    - manwe150 3mo ago
      The government departments know those things because the parents registered on those lists. It doesn’t automatically just “know”, and that info is historically not usually shared between government departments
      - regularfry 3mo ago
        That doesn't make the burden of proof magically mine.

delusional 3mo ago

Is anyone proposing age verification to file taxes? I'd hope you already have to provide some sort of stronger proof of identity to file a tax return anyway.

saghm 3mo ago
That's exactly my point; websites that already have absolutely no threat from having kids access them are literally unavailable due to the operating system put up a block that isn't necessary due to a hypothetical kid using the device to access an entirely different hypothetical website. The regulation is absurdly overbroad for what it's trying to actual protect against.
- delusional 3mo ago
  I don't know what regulation you're talking about. Nothing of the sort is being proposed in the part of the world PHK occupies.
  - saghm 3mo ago
    The comment I was responding to said this: > A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents, but require restrictions for consumer devices (smartphones, laptops). Maybe even enable age restrictions by default, block replacing the OS or the firmware, and only allow it once the age was confirmed. If you think that this statement is too broad for this thread, I don't understand why you only have issue with my direct response to it. It seems like your issue is with the parent comment I replied to for not being on-topic enough.
mr_toad 3mo ago
You don’t even need to be an adult to pay taxes, at least in some countries. I’ve been doing my own taxes since I was 14.

armchairhacker 3mo ago

"Age restriction" can be implemented where stock devices are completely unrestricted. For example, just with better parental controls and education: children don't have access to property, so the parent takes their device and enables the parental controls, but you own your device so leave them disabled. And this wouldn't affect Linux or FOSS: on a child's device their parent installs either a proprietary OS or a FOSS with parental controls, but again, on your device you install whatever you want.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
saghm 3mo ago
That's not what the comment I responded to was proposing: > Maybe even enable age restrictions by default, block replacing the OS or the firmware, and only allow it once the age was confirmed. Having an extra hurdle before installing Linux would be an awful secondary effect for this type of regulation independent of whether the check itself is already objectionable (which I always obviously think it is, although obviously plenty of people also don't)
- armchairhacker 3mo ago
  You're right. I don't see why a device would be age restricted by default, when practically always an adult has first access (too expensive)