1. Require device manufacturers to allow the device owner (which covers parents of minors' devices) to set policy for the device, including allow/blocklist for apps and sites, and allow/blocklists for content categories.
2. Require browsers to respect the device's policy for site allow/blocklist
3. Require browsers to set a certain header for allow/blocklist of content categories
4. Require websites to respect that header.
No need for age verification, no need for the government to decide what is/isn't allowed and for free you allow gamblers to prevent gambling content being shown to them etc.
---
This AZ law is frustrating because by targeting the app store it's actually taking a step towards my vision... but in a way that multiplies the harm of age verification instead of diminishing it.
They want to ID everyone, and have all user generated content attributed to a known, identified individual.
Dismantling it would probably ensure it's ugly af, but maybe if you try to go for one of those TV-in-a-frame things it might not look hideous.
I just want everyone to be clear on why it isn't happening.
This is also the same reason why early versions of Android had incredibly fine-grained permission controls that was stripped out... can't have users blocking inter-app marketing key coordination after all.
I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated.
Legally, since pornography still doesn't have a true definition in the US, someone would have to define the categories as well, and then the hundred million free speech fights would begin.
Your vision is the correct one, in my opinion, "adult content" headers would be an easy lift for web technology. But the ad agencies and information agencies (often the same) are spending all of the money to make sure nothing like that happens.
I think in addition to what OP said, the browser/device should let you set hard domain-level filters which are enforced by the browser/device.
This will not be ideal for applications / sites with mixed content, but gives the parent / guardian more control.
But then HN would still riot, because you would need to require all apps to be approved by a central authority (no unauthorized browsers) OR you need to lock down browser engines to those that respect the list somehow (maybe by killing JIT, limiting network connections).
I've learned long ago, as have politicians, there is zero solution that makes tech people happy... so move forward anyway, they'll always complain, you'll always complain, there is no tolerable solution but the status quo, which is also untenable.
I don't think you need to do that. You can pass a law without creating a technical mechanism that automatically enforces the law. The law doesn't even need to be perfect.
So what if you can still patch a browser yourself. Kids can steal cigarettes but laws against selling cigarettes to kids are still broadly effective.
So what if its technically possible for a vendor to ship a violating browser. Go after violaters with the legal system, not with the OS.
So what if there's a foreign vendor with a violating browser out of the reach of the law. You'd still have made the ecosystem vastly better even if there's gaps and loopholes.
Really miss the old internet.
somehow, censorship is only bad when the wrong side does it. when the correct side does it, it's justified and necessary for your democracies to survive.
Rep. Michael Way [R]
Rep. Leo Biasiucci [R]
Rep. Selina Bliss [R]
Rep. Michael Carbone [R]
Rep. Neal Carter [R]
Rep. Lupe Diaz [R]
Rep. Lisa Fink [R]
Rep. Matt Gress [R]
Rep. Chris Lopez [R]
Rep. David Marshall [R]
Rep. Quang Nguyen [R]
Rep. James Taylor [R][] https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/09/01/jaleel-stallings-sh...
--------- re: below due to throttling -------
Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that.
--------------------
>This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
AK implies an AK family firearm. IIRC it was a draco or draco like "pistol." Anyone with familiarity with firearms will consider that "pistol" to be in the AK family; it does have as shortened barrel and no stock but otherwise looks like and has nearly same components as the most common form of AK (In US, AK doesn't imply it is select fire assault rifle, if you go to a gun show and someone is selling an AK it is assumed it is semi-auto unless they advertise it as an NFA AK).
"Lit up" means he opened fire. I linked the case so you could read the facts, I agree it was in self defense, not sure why you assumed otherwise. I would have linked to some other news source if I wanted bias against him.
I said "during" the BLM riots, not that he was a rioter.
I can assure you I probably have a nearly similar opinion on this as you do, it appears you just jumped to conclusions and drawn ones that didn't exist so you could go on your rage against me.
My point here is the people he shot at acted a lot like ICE did in Minneapolis -- rolling up in unmarked cars, masked, shooting people (like goode). It's not clear to me citizens of Minnesota would actually be found guilty if they were to find themselves in a case of self defense.
It is certainly a bold choice to use this wildly misleading framing when you link to a news article that directly contradicts it. A more accurate framing would be "when a guy returned fire against a gang of thugs who were firing on random passerby from an unmarked van".
Court documents and transcripts reveal a far different story than the one officers told investigators, as well as the tales police and prosecutors offered up to the media.
Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! Fuck ’em up, gas ’em, fuck ’em up.”
At 17th Avenue and Lake Street, around 10 p.m., the SWAT team saw a group of people outside the Stop-N-Shop gas station. Bittell told the driver to head toward the station and said, “Let ’em have it boys!”
They later learned they were shooting at the gas station owner, neighbors and relatives guarding the station from more looting, as well as bystanders, including a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was yelling, “Press!”
About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot.
They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. [...] Stallings, an Army veteran, returned fire with his mini Draco pistol, for which he had a permit.
---
> Everything I've said is factually accurate. Hilarious how some commenters are saying I am "lying" or assume I disagree with the verdict when it could not be further from the truth. I'm only pointing out that armed fire upon police might be legal in Minnesota, and there is recent case example of that.
This is a silly way to have a conversation, but as for your response: every single word you picked was as misleading as possible. "AK" implies an assault rifle but it was a pistol. "Lit up on cops" implies that he started the conflict by attacking cops, rather than it being one of self-defense against people indistinguishable from thugs. You invoke "BLM riots", but there is no evidence he was involved in that at all. Your words are clearly chosen in such a way as to prime people towards a certain belief about the event. With the most charitable interpretation of your words possible, they might factually describe the events, but I think it crosses the line to the point where you would have to be so charitable as to actively misinterpret what words mean in order for them to remain factually accurate. At any rate, that level of charity is absolutely unwarranted given how intentionally uncharitable the selection of those words was in the first place.
--------- re: below due to throttling ---------------
>Adults can sell each other property with no ID and without the state getting involved, who knew.
Yes and it's legal. Should be for apps too. Headline says all apps.
--------------------------------------
>Is it legal to sell a gun to a child in Arizona? Or do you responsible for age verification? You continue to argue in bad faith.
It is legal to sell a gun to an adult in AZ without carding them and without doing "age verification" as described in the article. In comparison, this bill appears to make it illegal to sell an app to an adult without doing "age verification" as they've described. My comparison here is in good faith.
If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.
Instead (or rather in addition to) activism we should go at it from the other end and request the introduction of a verifiably independent authority and zero knowledge protocol that will deliver a cryptographically secure boolean bit (isOver18) with no way to correlate from either end the ID or which website the bit is used for.
The alternative is IDs get collected by all these horrendous privacy fiends and sold / leaked / monetized across the board, which sounds like a dystopian nightmare.