Let’s just say meta delivers some problematic content that traumatizes a kid and really upsets parents. This content was on the 12-year-olds Chromebook. The kid, then setting up the laptop with his parents had his age in there appropriately, and Met used theAPI to obtain it to prevent adult content delivery.
However, kid is tech savvy, creates a secondary accounts, says they are 45. Maybe uses parents ID or something to do it. They then get the adult content. Parents file suit.
Meta lawyers: Our API works as designed, and we can be held liable when the OS API says the person is 45 and not 12.
Case dismissed. Profit.
How is that any different from what happens today? Kid makes fake account - gets adult content - Meta shrugs and says they did what they could. Of course there would be ways it can be circumvented, this would change nothing about that situation except shift the responsibility of correctly inputting the users age onto the user, which is where it should be. I’d much rather have that scenario than one where meta is forcing all users to upload government IDs; Using that excuse to harvest and store even more data than necessary.
Should you have to verify your age to your car before you can turn it in, to drive to the DMV before you can obtain your license and registration? Who should have the burden?
Should your front door verify your age before you leave to go buy alcohol from the local liquor store?
Should your bed verify your age and the age of your lover before you have sex?
Also, this isn’t even the biggest problem, the problem is this is just more surveillance. Don’t comply in advance. Default to protect and keep your freedom by protecting your privacy.
I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified.
Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I’m describing is exactly how it’s been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn’t need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.
Let’s just say meta delivers some problematic content that traumatizes a kid and really upsets parents. This content was on the 12-year-olds Chromebook. The kid, then setting up the laptop with his parents had his age in there appropriately, and Met used theAPI to obtain it to prevent adult content delivery. However, kid is tech savvy, creates a secondary accounts, says they are 45. Maybe uses parents ID or something to do it. They then get the adult content. Parents file suit. Meta lawyers: Our API works as designed, and we can be held liable when the OS API says the person is 45 and not 12. Case dismissed. Profit.
But okay, definitely nonsensical.
How is that any different from what happens today? Kid makes fake account - gets adult content - Meta shrugs and says they did what they could. Of course there would be ways it can be circumvented, this would change nothing about that situation except shift the responsibility of correctly inputting the users age onto the user, which is where it should be. I’d much rather have that scenario than one where meta is forcing all users to upload government IDs; Using that excuse to harvest and store even more data than necessary.
Should you have to verify your age to your car before you can turn it in, to drive to the DMV before you can obtain your license and registration? Who should have the burden?
Should your front door verify your age before you leave to go buy alcohol from the local liquor store?
Should your bed verify your age and the age of your lover before you have sex?
Also, this isn’t even the biggest problem, the problem is this is just more surveillance. Don’t comply in advance. Default to protect and keep your freedom by protecting your privacy.
😐 How do you think they will verify the age entered into the OS? Smh
So you didn’t bother to read my original post I guess, no wonder you’re confused.
I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified. Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I’m describing is exactly how it’s been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn’t need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.