this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
400 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

84891 readers
3305 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 70 points 2 hours ago

Tbh, this is just a massive stack of misguidedness.

First, look at what the original law does:

  • OS needs to know the age.
  • OS itself doesn't do anything with the age
  • OS needs to provide the age to apps and services asking for it
  • Apps and services need to block content based on the age provided with the OS
  • If the OS doesn't provide an age, apps and services have to block as if the user was a toddler

Removing the requirement for the OS to provide an age doesn't change anything at all, because someone running an OS that doesn't provide an age will just be blocked everywhere. That's not a solution, that's a joke to appease idiots who don't know what the law does.

This is just as misguided as the backlash against systemd who added an age field to the user account to allow people to be still able to access age-restricted content.

The actually relevant part that people should be combatting is the requirement for apps and services to do age verification using the OS-provided age. The OS age field doesn't matter.