It’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license.
Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.
Meta has recently been successfully sued for harming children. They are naturally pursuing the easiest path to remove themselves from liability. If you don't trust an age signal that a user chooses on their own at during os setup that can legally only be used for age verification purposes, then you're certainly not going to trust whatever age verification method Facebook will use as an alternative.
sure they can, but they would have to justify that change, and we have a better argument to oppose such a change. better than had they never added an exemption in the first place.
I think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption.
(As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)
"Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction"
That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.
Also not a lawyer, but from what I understand typically open source license restrictions are on redistribution - there's nothing preventing you from modifying something for personal use in more or less whatever way you want.
That indeed seems to rule out most open source licenses actually; one or another restriction, like including the license or not modify the license, will be in conflict. I’m pretty sure this sloppiness in phrasing is on purpose.
that's a very cynic take. it's the same as the tiring old argument that the GPL is not free, because true freedom should allow you to do whatever you want. but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy.
if you take the argument to the extreme then only public domain code would be exempt. clearly the lawmakers are aware of open source and free software licenses and would not make a stupid blunder to only allow public domain operating systems which nobody is using, if they even exist.
the license can't be modified anyways, that's a feature of copyright. a license may allow combination with code that has a different license, but the original code is still under the original license. so if i build a program that includes MIT or BSD code and GPL code, then the combined result is under the GPL, but the original MIT code is still MIT or BSD. both licenses require that the license notice may not be removed. i can rip out the GPL code and distribute the rest under MIT again. if it was possible to actually modify the license then i could not do that.
Will an LLM drop capitals and write all lowercase if you ask it to or does it require postprocessing?
The writing style reminds me of the people in college who would fake an English accent.
Addressing the actual comment, "it's anarchy not freedom" isn't really meaningful when talking about software modification instead of societal governance. Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?
Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do.
If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.
Parents want another option between their child being shown harmful content on social media and signing up their child up to be a pariah because they're not allowed to use social media altogether.
You're reaching for legally mandated solutions. Why can't this be one?
"Choose to be a good parent, vs legally mandated spyware". Why not "legality mandated be a good parent"? This would solve a lot of other problems too. Like, all those people who hand wring "oh we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! It's not working! Whatever could work in aggregate?!" people who don't actually parent can be trained to parent, and if they refuse they face consequences.
You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position.
Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.
> If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway
School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.
The workable alternative is no bill. These age surveillance bills are designed specifically to indemnify service providers (and, specifically, Facebook) when they inevitably try to harm your child, on the basis of "well the phone OS said he's over 18 so we can do whatever we want to him".
Imagine: Websites over a certain number of users must publish content-suitability tags. Preinstalled operating systems over a certain marketshare must include software that can filter on said content-suitability tags, which can be enabled during the initial setup process. When parental controls are enabled, websites without tags "fail closed" and don't display. The open web continues to exist, and the long tails of sites, operating systems, and devices stay completely unaffected.
The bill under discussion is being pushed by Facebook purely to absolve themselves of liability. The information flow is completely backwards. Its design actually removes control from parents (websites are responsible for making the decision, so whether a given site is suitable for your kid is made by corporate attorneys), and puts assumed liability on parents (eg "you're negligent for letting your kid access a browser that doesn't broadcast their age").
(I'm a parent but thankfully not yet at the stage where I have to navigate this issue)
It’s still not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled. “You must add this sentence to the foreword of all books you write, unless you use the CC0 license” would still be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech even though it exempts authors who use a free license.
Given the current broad assault on civil liberties, though, I’ll take any small victories we can get.
> not good that these bills are setting the expectation that speech can be compelled
How is this different from any disclosure, signage or notice requirement?
compelled speech, freedom of speech, association, etc all died with Goldwater. It's over bubba, the government is just thinking up new ways to use it.
Open, closed, doesn't matter. Just say no.
Meta is behind this.
Meta has recently been successfully sued for harming children. They are naturally pursuing the easiest path to remove themselves from liability. If you don't trust an age signal that a user chooses on their own at during os setup that can legally only be used for age verification purposes, then you're certainly not going to trust whatever age verification method Facebook will use as an alternative.
[citation requested]
this was posted last month
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...
and discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47362528
Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought the above comment was saying Meta was behind the open source exemption
It is not trustworthy full stop. A simple amendment passed the next year can change it.
sure they can, but they would have to justify that change, and we have a better argument to oppose such a change. better than had they never added an exemption in the first place.
I think a open-source exemption would be acceptable (if done properly; another comment mentions a possible problem), even though I would think it would be preferable to not have such age-verification bills at all. At least, adding the exemption would be second best, which would be better than having the age-verification bills without a open-source exemption.
(As another comment says, it is still not good, but at least it is something.)
This is the "lesser evil" trick politicians use to silence the opposition.
"Does not apply to operating systems under terms that permit a recipient to ... modify the software without restriction"
That sounds like it doesn't even apply to most open-source licenses, since they usually do have some restrictions, like not being able to change the license without permission of all authors, or removing authors' credits, plus you have to display the license to the user etc., IANAL but perhaps those could all be interpreted as "restrictions" that make it not eligible for exemption.
Also not a lawyer, but from what I understand typically open source license restrictions are on redistribution - there's nothing preventing you from modifying something for personal use in more or less whatever way you want.
I should not have paraphrased... it says "TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT RESTRICTION".
The way I interpret that is that redistributing cannot be restricted either, which wouldn't work for say, the GPL, as far as I understand it.
That indeed seems to rule out most open source licenses actually; one or another restriction, like including the license or not modify the license, will be in conflict. I’m pretty sure this sloppiness in phrasing is on purpose.
that's a very cynic take. it's the same as the tiring old argument that the GPL is not free, because true freedom should allow you to do whatever you want. but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy.
if you take the argument to the extreme then only public domain code would be exempt. clearly the lawmakers are aware of open source and free software licenses and would not make a stupid blunder to only allow public domain operating systems which nobody is using, if they even exist.
the license can't be modified anyways, that's a feature of copyright. a license may allow combination with code that has a different license, but the original code is still under the original license. so if i build a program that includes MIT or BSD code and GPL code, then the combined result is under the GPL, but the original MIT code is still MIT or BSD. both licenses require that the license notice may not be removed. i can rip out the GPL code and distribute the rest under MIT again. if it was possible to actually modify the license then i could not do that.
> but that's not true freedom, that's anarchy
Will an LLM drop capitals and write all lowercase if you ask it to or does it require postprocessing?
The writing style reminds me of the people in college who would fake an English accent.
Addressing the actual comment, "it's anarchy not freedom" isn't really meaningful when talking about software modification instead of societal governance. Why is "anarchy" of home software modification a bad thing?
Zuck is a fake geek
Propose a workable alternative for parents and then we'll talk.
Engage with your kids. Don't give them personal devices until they're a bit older. Monitor their usage properly with your own senses, not with "parental controls". Talk to them about what they do.
If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway.
Parents want another option between their child being shown harmful content on social media and signing up their child up to be a pariah because they're not allowed to use social media altogether.
That's the option we have now and it's not working. Please suggest and alternative that works.
No, you misunderstand.
You're reaching for legally mandated solutions. Why can't this be one?
"Choose to be a good parent, vs legally mandated spyware". Why not "legality mandated be a good parent"? This would solve a lot of other problems too. Like, all those people who hand wring "oh we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! It's not working! Whatever could work in aggregate?!" people who don't actually parent can be trained to parent, and if they refuse they face consequences.
Maybe suck less at being a parent? Just throwing it out there. You actually need to do the work.
I'm talking about parents in aggregate. It's not working. Please suggest something that works en mass.
You are the person requesting others comply (on behalf of the aggregate) the onus is on you to provide this solution. The solution that was provided, specifically engaged parenting, is the appropriate response.
Nope, because it will be passed unless you come to the negotiating table in good faith. The truth is that all this resistance mean you don't get a seat at the table, will be left out of discussions and your worst fears will come to pass because you took a hard-line position.
Good luck. People who aren't willing to collaborate don't get what they want.
My god. People like you are the reason we can’t have nice things.
This is rich. Really setting the terms here huh? So tough and scary on the internet.
It's really adorable.
Maybe we should require a license to have kids if it's not working as it is.
I can't believe a license for kids is less infringing on rights than age verification. Please be serious.
Why should anyone have the right to hold such power over another human being?
I think it's the opposite, you need to demonstrate that this law would work
How effective do you find that strategy to be?
1%
> If they're minded to bypass all that then they're going to bypass any technical block you put on anyway
School bans have been effective because the entire friend group is taken off at once. That network effect is important. We need a real solution for keeping kids off social media—there is too much popular will for this not to happen. The debate is realistically around how.
The workable alternative is no bill. These age surveillance bills are designed specifically to indemnify service providers (and, specifically, Facebook) when they inevitably try to harm your child, on the basis of "well the phone OS said he's over 18 so we can do whatever we want to him".
solution to what exactly?
Imagine: Websites over a certain number of users must publish content-suitability tags. Preinstalled operating systems over a certain marketshare must include software that can filter on said content-suitability tags, which can be enabled during the initial setup process. When parental controls are enabled, websites without tags "fail closed" and don't display. The open web continues to exist, and the long tails of sites, operating systems, and devices stay completely unaffected.
The bill under discussion is being pushed by Facebook purely to absolve themselves of liability. The information flow is completely backwards. Its design actually removes control from parents (websites are responsible for making the decision, so whether a given site is suitable for your kid is made by corporate attorneys), and puts assumed liability on parents (eg "you're negligent for letting your kid access a browser that doesn't broadcast their age").
(I'm a parent but thankfully not yet at the stage where I have to navigate this issue)