Hacker News

Favorites Setup
Comment by red_admiral | original | California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law
[−]red_admiral · 2026-08-30 Sun 08:19 UTC · link
We got into this mess because people wanted Facebook to have age verification, and MZ decided to push the responsibility on to OSes.

The result looks to me like Facebook will ban access from non-approved OSes like Linux. Android will still be allowed, GrapheneOS probably not.

[−]johnnyanmac · 2026-08-30 Sun 08:44 UTC · link
Facebook was the excuse (and there's a no zero chance Meta funded the initiative themselves). The government's worldwide jumped on it so quickly partially becsuse they've been trying to find aan excuse to control the internet for decades. Never dismiss how quick they are to push stuff like this but how slow they are to enact actual positive change for the people.
[−]inigyou · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:42 UTC · link
But California AB1043 is an anti-control law.
[−]vdfs · 2026-08-30 Sun 09:27 UTC · link
That would be a big win for linux users
[−]frameset · 2026-08-30 Sun 10:24 UTC · link
I've heard that joke from Linux users when it comes to anti-cheat.

Which OS is better for gaming? Windows or Linux?

A: Linux, because you can't play League of Legends

[−]Gangway0829 · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:21 UTC · link
Freedom from League of legends AND Facebook? Linux Torvalds just can't stop winning
[−]gonzalohm · 2026-08-30 Sun 11:20 UTC · link
How do you ban access to a website based on the OS of the user?
[−]mirashii · 2026-08-30 Sun 11:28 UTC · link
By requiring hardware attestation, like Private Access Tokens in iOS/MacOS (see https://blog.cloudflare.com/eliminating-captchas-on-iphones-... for example) and Web Environment Integrity and its successors ( https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-In... ).
[−]gonzalohm · 2026-08-30 Sun 12:08 UTC · link
That sounds horrible
[−]teddyh · 2026-08-30 Sun 12:48 UTC · link
[−]cyanydeez · 2026-08-30 Sun 13:26 UTC · link
[−]inigyou · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:38 UTC · link
According to the existing law, Facebook can't provide service to any user whose OS doesn't say they're old enough. According to this new law, Linux won't say that. So Linux users won't be allowed to use Facebook.
[−]cyanydeez · 2026-08-30 Sun 13:18 UTC · link
"people" didn't ask for age verification; they asked for Facebook to be shut down because it's a social hazard for children.
[−]ajsnigrutin · 2026-08-30 Sun 13:58 UTC · link
TBH, OS based parental filters are the optimal solution here, especially if implemented in a proper way.

Kids don't buy phones and computers, parents do. When setting up the account for the first time, the parents could set the account to be an "underage one", all the apps, browsers, etc., would get the USER_IS_UNDERAGE flag and filter content according to that. No need for every site to ask and verify the age, just set the date of birth at the time of purchase, set a parental password (for possible future changes, reselling, etc.) and prohibit formats/wipes/factory resets without a parental password being entered. The clerks in telco stores could even help with the first setup of that.

Same could be easily implemented in linux, via some user flag set by the su/sudo user during the first eg. ubuntu install.

[−]lokar · 2026-08-30 Sun 14:31 UTC · link
That’s pretty much what the law does
[−]rebeccaskinner · 2026-08-30 Sun 14:35 UTC · link
on-device filtering is the right way to go, but it shouldn’t be a matter of sending metadata about the user to a service- instead services should provide standard metadata about the content to the device and the device can choose what, if anything, to display.

This preserves privacy better by keeping more information about the user local, and gives people better tools to decide what metadata categories they want to filter- for their kids and for themselves.

[−]ajsnigrutin · 2026-08-30 Sun 14:41 UTC · link
That's much harder to implement. If you ban advertising eg. online casinos to underge users, the service would have to send two different ads (one 18+ and one for younger people too), and the browser would have to decide which one to play. Same for eg searching on google, browsers would have to filter out every <div> with adult content, meaning half the page would be empty, but with a browser "underage" flag, google could just turn on safe search and not allow turning it off.
[−]1e1a · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:37 UTC · link
Plus, as soon as the user clicks on one of these optionally filtered elements, the service will know how exactly what browser is filtering.
[−]inigyou · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:41 UTC · link
That solution doesn't actually work, and it angers me that people can't see why it doesn't work. That solution requires that the entire website must be child-safe or none of it. That solution requires that Tumblr must ban porn if Tumblr has any underage users. The alternative would be that Tumblr would randomly not load for underage users because some recommendation or ad would be over 18, and so it would rapidly have none.
[−]Grombobulous · 2026-08-30 Sun 14:49 UTC · link
Yeah, there’s negative backlash against the age gate stuff but as long as you’re implementing it without privacy concerns like ID collection and verification it’s actually a really good idea.

A parent can change the setting in the OS and have every website and app comply with the OS setting is such a better situation than having to deal with a patchwork of content blockers, social media account settings, and parental controls that leak like a sieve.

Realistically, parents often don’t really have a good way to know what websites and apps you sign up for if you don’t have a crazily locked down device. Parental controls are complicated for non-technical parents and they usually know less than their kids do about the Internet.

A global OS age gate solves a lot of those problems, especially since OS-level controls are way easier to enforce and lock down compared to other methods.

[−]red_admiral · 2026-08-30 Sun 14:55 UTC · link
This assumes the parent knows a little bit about computers - as opposed to the child being the one that's constantly helping the parent out.
[−]hirako2000 · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:04 UTC · link
Exactly like GDPR shouldn't have mandated millions of websites to pop up a consent form, as a global browser setting could would have set consent as a user preference.

But the objective of these regulations aren't what it says on the tin.

[−]inigyou · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:42 UTC · link
The objective is exactly what it says on the tin. The malicious compliance is someone else's objective.
[−]inigyou · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:39 UTC · link
Yes. It's extremely sensible and I believe opposition to it is a shill campaign by companies like Meta.
[−]narmiouh · 2026-08-30 Sun 14:06 UTC · link
I'm not sure it is very bad that facebook won't be accessible from Linux.
[−]bentt · 2026-08-30 Sun 15:12 UTC · link
Can’t think of a better outcome than Meta guaranteeing all parents that Linux is the safest OS for their kids. Steam Machines under every Christmas tree.
[−]WD-42 · 2026-08-30 Sun 15:14 UTC · link
> The result looks to me like Facebook will ban access from non-approved OSes like Linux

Oh no! Anyways…

[−]dfxm12 · 2026-08-30 Sun 16:02 UTC · link
We got into this mess long before this, when we decided it was ok to trade freedom at the hint of protecting children, without considering the actual merits of the situation. Look at the horsemen of the infoacalypse.

Then we decided we should punish ourselves rather than expect/require big business make safe products.