this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
116 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

81653 readers
4452 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Bill 26-051 reflects that pattern. The bill does not directly regulate individual websites that publish adult or otherwise restricted content. Instead, it shifts responsibility to operating system providers and app distribution infrastructure.

Under the bill, an operating system provider would be required to collect a user’s date of birth or age information when an account is established. The provider would then generate an age bracket signal and make that signal available to developers through an application programming interface when an app is downloaded or accessed through a covered application store.

App developers, in turn, would be required to request and use that age bracket signal.

Rather than mandating that every website perform its own age verification check, the bill attempts to embed age attestation within the operating system account layer and have that classification flow through app store ecosystems.

The measure represents the latest iteration in a series of Colorado efforts that have struggled to balance child safety, privacy, feasibility and constitutional limits.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] riskable@programming.dev 23 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

Just think: Without legislation like this, kids will be able to see people having sex! Thus, ending their lives. Not so different from staring into the eyes of Medusa!

The amount of children exposed to sex that have died—or suffered worse consequences like early onset conservatism—may have been zero so far but the dangers are clear! We must skip right over parental involvement in child rearing and go straight to the source of the problem: Computers.

Computers have been giving everyone access to too much information for too long! We must restrict it! The first step is to get an implementation that actually works to censor information—to save the children (wink wink)—then later, we will have the tools necessary to censor whatever we want!

When glorious dictator decides that information about trans-genic mice must be erased from the Internet, we shall have the power to do so!

[–] Zorcron@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 minutes ago

I would argue that early and excessive exposure to very misogynistic porn can be damaging to a child in that it can reinforce that misogyny and bad sexual patterns/ideas.

I would also argue that it is the job of the parent or guardian of said child to make sure the information they get online (or anywhere for that matter) is age-appropriate, and not the job of the state.

These are clearly laws that are either not well thought through or (probably more likely) intentionally limiting of every citizen’s privacy. I don’t think that even if the porn or bullying or whatever problem was as bad as they say it is that this would even be justified.

[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 15 points 4 hours ago

We must protect little Billy from seeing tits, so he can keep laser focus on preparing for the next school shooting.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 10 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Hear, hear. When I was young my friends and I wanted to see the naked boobies but because the internet had not been invented we just couldn't. It was impossible! Its not the kind of thing you find lying around!

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 hours ago

Definitely not in ziplock bags hidden in the nearest forest to the school, put there by your older brother...

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The reasoning in Australia is not about sex but cyber bullying. It’s a big problem and certainly more difficult to refute than kids watching porn.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 9 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

How the fuck does age gating prevent cyber bullying? That's not an age issue, it's an asshole issue.

Oh wait, because it's not about age at all but identifying individuals who think differently when the regime. Whichever regime that is.

Like those cases where the cyberbullying was coming from the children's own fucking parents.