3 ms·
Yeah, this is fantastic. Should be top of the page. I’m honestly shocked, I’ve fully internalized that everything is corrupt and beholden to big corporations. S
by edot 1mo ago
Yeah, this is fantastic. Should be top of the page. I’m honestly shocked, I’ve fully internalized that everything is corrupt and beholden to big corporations. Somehow, a victory! Looks like the Linux Foundation and EFF pushed back, but they’re not exactly big. Good job, California lawmakers!
- zoobab 1mo agoNot a victory, Android is still covered.
- qmarchi 1mo agoHard to argue that it's open source...
- catlikesshrimp 1mo agoGraphene should qualify. That would be a good incentive for kids to learn to root a mobile device and run graphene on it.
- harvey9 1mo agoI used the web based installer and it was so easy that we would be complaining the kids are not really learning anything by doing it!
- epihelix 1mo agoYou actually don't root a GrapheneOS device (sadly, imo, but this is one of GrapheneOS's peculiarities. If you want root, Lineage is your friend.)
- gmueckl 1mo agoAOSP itself shouldn't be.
- roenxi 1mo ago> Good job, California lawmakers! Is this serious or sarcasm? They passed a horrible law, now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce. So, you know. Why legislate it? There isn't much of an angle here that reflects well on Californian lawmakers, they're still supporting this authoritarian trend of de-anonymisation and rolling back free communication on the internet. They're just going to come back for linux later once the idea of legally mandated PII on account registration is normalised. Although I do see this "In addition, lawmakers inserted a new provision prohibiting anyone from requesting an age signal from an OS provider or app store unless required by law" so we seem to be entering a wild space where they're going to try and micromanage this in a weird way.
- 1718627440 1mo ago> now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce Law is not an abstract code, but an incremental sometimes futile approach to shape society. They only want a way to hold big corporations accountable to exploiting children. They don't actually intend the effects on the consumer, so they tried to fix on easily changeable effect: "Don't worsen the privacy for people who want it." If you are using e.g. MS Windows, you have given up everything already. They do a lot of "telemetry" and for example everything you typed into MS Word is already licensed to Microsoft.
- roenxi 1mo agoSo what makes kid users on linux so special that they don't need nanny state protection? Are the Californian legislators just throwing them to the wolves? Or are the protections being put in place here not actually important? Seriously, what is the message here supposed to be about the kids using linux? And why are they so different from kids using Windows or Mac? Are there other safety features we can exempt kid linux users from?
- 1718627440 1mo agoThere is no corporation that spies on the user at the OS level. There is a sysadmin (likely the parent), whose responsibility is that already.