RedHat/IBM does have an Illinois presence so will likely be compelled to add it to their distro, and will likely do it through systemd. So to avoid it getting into any consumer distro you'd have to ship a patch to remove it from systemd.

This is probably all completely irrelevant to StageX since it's a distro designed to be used in containers, AFAICT.

If you're in the USA or plan to visit someday, I would recommend you speak with your attorney before making such commitments.

Good news: the legislation doesn't target you as an individual.

       "Operating system provider" means a commercial or
  non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's
  operating system, including the design, programming, or supply
  of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices.

> ”Linux distro founder here (stagex)… designed to work offline-first, with some variants not even supporting network drivers”

If your OS doesn’t access the internet or isn’t intended to run browsers / social apps, then you are outside the scope of this legislation. That would be a bit like requiring a toaster to ask for your age before letting you operate it.

They can stop you from doing any work on the project. They can even fine or jail you for work done after the law takes affect that the international committee doesn't allow. Which is to say you can be forced to stop work.

Though if you don't live in IL it is unclear how this affects you.

i like the cut of your jib

Just wait until all vendors are required to lock down their devices like Apple does. Apple has shown that it is possible, thanks Apple!

THIS. PLEASE THIS.

> Linux distro founder here (stagex)

What does it mean to "found" a Linux distro? Can you describe it?

Brother you are doing the worlds work stopping this type of "law".

If we don't like the law we keep doing the thing and enough people join and it gets changed to our liking.

Having the ability to identify who is watching or saying what on the internet would be immensely useful to the government; the justifications are really meaningless.

Anti-money-laundering is a comparable field, as all the AML regulations and laws are ineffective at identifying money launderers, but they're wonderful for verifying (auditing and prosecuting) tax compliance.

> Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion.

If the intent were to actually protect children, then this would be what was done.

"Protect the children" is just a subterfuge to get electorate support for voting for the foundation for a "1984 thought crime" style monitoring of the internet.

Can we extend that beyond just parental controls? I'd love to permaban 90% of the internet from ever reaching me. But the laws are designed backwards because they're probably written for someone else's benefit.

If this age verification stuff ever becomes plausible we always have the option of distributing actual Linux ISOs over bittorrent. Failing that, source code in RAR'd archives distributed across IPFS nodes and Tor. I feel like many of us would welcome the challenge if it were under better circumstances.

I'm now pretty convinced that this is the best argument for persuading non-technical and non-internet-privacy minded people why this is a problem. It's hard to explain all the technical factors that make it impossible to implement without compromising privacy... but it's pretty easy to get them to understand the real intent. If you start them thinking through what mechanisms would make sense _if_ the original premise truly was protecting kids from content they aren't ready to see, it's easy to arrive at that answer, and equally easy to see why "everyone must provide their ID so we can verify their age" probably comes from other motivations.

They're actually designed quite well for the intended purpose: mass surveillance and suppression of speech.

Don't ever for one second pretend this is about anything else.

The idea of a 'user agent' where the 'device owner' decides 'what should be displayed and how' is ancient history, grandad.

Modern social media is delivered through 'apps' which are like web browsers, except without ad blockers or privacy settings, and with push notifications to make them more addictive, and they only show one website, and they're each 5x the size of a web browser for some reason.

This is definitely not about "protect the kids" or age verification, this is a stepping stone to full identity verification to use the internet at all.

> I feel like all of these laws are being designed backwards. Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion.

This was tried in the past:

* https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/

* https://www.w3.org/PICS/

Or anyone else!

This isn’t for the protection of kids. It’s for the protection of profits by surveillance capitalism.

I think you’re missing the real purpose vs the stated purpose.

The point is monitoring everyone, age verification requires you to share who you are.

It seems like after Epstein was gone a lot of politicians in many countries suddenly want to identify children, take photos for "age identification", and their ages and what apps they use. Very strange.

How dare you try to use a system that we've used for generations!

Did you read the law? It actually imposes very (in my humble opinion) good rules on the content providers, specifically social media. We know why social media is addictive - the personalized feeds are highly optimized to extend usage time, with no amount of time being "good enough." Social media sites would be banned from using this type of feed, limiting it to feeds of content you've subscribed to or requested only. Instead of seeing mainly influencers and viral videos, people might even start seeing their friends' own content.

> Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age ... to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.

Idk about you, but it'd be doing me favors because my kids will not be physically able to use the most addictive platforms that exist today in their current form. It would be a major disruption to the behavioral manipulation that Meta, TikTok, and X do.

Parents already have the ability to do this, at least when it comes to porn. The fact is that most parents aren't doing it. Hence the push for legislation that increase the uptake of content blocks for minors.

It is a technical ratchet. Once you accept part of the implementation it will never be undone, more will be added.

that is the start of a lot of bills like this... they really only ever increase in scope and invasiveness.

Think of it like a foot in the door.

Everyone else is arguing slippery slope.

I don’t even get that far, the proper response to my operating system asking me if I’m a minor or not is: fuck you. It isn’t a harmless question. We aren’t friends, I don’t want an algorithm of news and content, it’s an OS.

I don't see the argument here. You can easily adjust the law to force verification.

You seem to assume that "this is now final, nothing will change after that". Why would you assume this to be the case?

Meta is one of the biggest ones pushing for this, because they don't want to be accountable so these types of laws pass the buck onto the delivery platforms (Apple, Google, other OSes)

Meta is then funding/lobbying alongside a bunch of other conservative groups like Heritage Action, and the digital childhood alliance (also made up of a ton of other conservative lobbying groups)

Tech incumbents whose businesses are reliant on selling ad space need to designate who is a verified human on the internet as soon as possible or their businesses go to zero once the entire web is AI bots and all the traffic is fraudulent and worthless, so they have to play as many angles as they can to achieve this.

Its ad tech, as always.

This seems to have more information. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rshc1f/i_traced_2_b...

These bills all suddenly appeared, as if by magic, in multiple state houses only a very short time after Zuck was on the stand in the Facebook trial early in the year testifying that "the right place to do age verification is in the operating system".

Now, granted, correlation is not always causation. But it sure stinks of something Meta had their lobbyists push just after Zuck's testimony so as to shift the liability risk of handling age appropriate material away from Meta properties and onto operating systems (Microsoft, Apple, Google (Android)).

You raise an interesting point in the first sentence. It might be that age sniffing could actually violate the US constitution.

As for lobbyists: I think we can probably determine the key lobbyists, e. g. if we map the data and names. And ideally also the money given to them. Ultimately they are faceless though, because corruption is easily exchangeable. The issue here is systemic though. The US "democracy" no longer exists due to that corruption. It is not rule by the people but rule by bribery.

I used to run a parental controls startup and after talking to lots of parents, I can tell you this sentiment is shared among most parents. Parents on both sides of the isle think they're going to keep their teenagers off the internet forever, I had parents look me straight in the face and say their child wouldn't be allowed online until she was 16.

Parents aren't interested in the nuance of good and bad guys, they see the internet, think it's too much trouble to keep around, and want it blocked. I suspect politicians are just mimicking this sentiment after talking to thousands of parents

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm.

You could argue about the language and the meaning of "algorithm", but for practical purposes I'd consider a manually-curated feed to be non-algorithmic.

"Illinois now requires operating system providers, open source projects included, to build age verification by 2028"

however

"nothing in the bill has teeth against someone with no business presence in Illinois"

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?

Phrases can have meanings beyond just a naive combination of the words in them. And indeed "algorithmic feed" in the bill means what what we all understand that term to mean when we aren't paralyzed by pedantry.

> Under the law, [...] these users will only be shown content they request or search for or that is posted by a creator or friend they follow.

You may disagree with the motivation behind the bill, but you do the discussion a disservice to assume the people writing it are incompetent enough to not define their terms.

Presumably this means no targeting the user's preferences and just showing everything by newest/most liked.

They want an explanation of what an algorithm is. The world is full of people using words they don't understand and sometimes of them work in legislatures.

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?

That's a paraphrasing of what law says. The law is more clearly defined:

> "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met: (1) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user's device and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users; (2) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on data controlled by user-selected privacy or accessibility settings or technical information concerning the user's device; (3) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information that is not permissible under this definition; (4) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media by a specific author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to as described by paragraph (3), be blocked, prioritized, or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not permissible under this definition; (5) the media is direct and private communication between users; (6) the media is recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user; (7) the media that is recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or (8) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this Act. "Addictive social media platform" means a covered platform that offers users or provides users with an addictive feed as a part of the service provided by that website, online service, online application, or mobile application.

That part hasn't really been decided since it's a regulatory question.

Basically the bill defines

> "Operating system provider" means a commercial or non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's operating system, including the design, programming, or supply of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices.

Which is an extremely broad definition that could be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways.

The text of the bill is here: https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&Doc.... There's about 3.5 pages of text defining this.

The relevant text doesn't call it an "algorithmic feed" for what it's worth. They define an "addictive" feed and it's essentially any kind of personalized recommendation.

> "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met.

Two reasons people are arguing against it:

It moves the Overton window, making worse things easier to pass in the future. And it enforces requirements on projects the state should have zero jurisdiction over.

Step 1: Shift the burden from service providers to OS providers (on devices owned by individuals).

Step 2: Recognize that the system is trivially bypassed by a kid who sets up their own device without their parents' oversight or parents who just think this is a stupid law and lying for their kids. Or bypassed by anyone using open source operating systems which are (for a feature like this) going to be trivial to amend to always claim the person is an adult regardless of which account is being used.

At this point there are three possible futures that are worth considering:

1. Throw out the rules because they're stupid and everyone with any common sense or sense of decency has been saying it since the start. The service provider is responsible, not the OS developer or device manufacturer. (Best case)

2. Keep the stupid rules on the books and pretend they work. Let the service providers off the hook. (Second best case)

3. Create more rules that effectively cedes more control of personal devices to the government to make this actually work, but the effect of this is to essentially outlaw OSes like Linux and many, many devices and even raw hardware without a government permitted OS pre-installed. (The worst case)

(3) is extreme, but it's the only way that this law actually has the desired effect. (1) and (2) are the most likely outcomes, but reflect that this whole exercise is just a waste of time.

The reason is ridiculously simple: people don't put up a fight because they don't want to be labelled as a peto or as someone not in favor of the protection of Children. This is primarily why this cudgel is brought out so often: it's very difficult to oppose because you risk getting shunned for it.

How has this fatalism been working out for your society?

Don’t worry. It will all burn down soon. This administration is preparing the narrative to "cancel the midterms" if they lose the senate and house. Using the illegal war as cover.

Nothing in this bill requires age verification. It just requires the OS to have a way to specify the user’s age (not necessarily an exact birth date), so that it can be provided to apps and websites that ask for it.

lawsuits for what? AFAIK you have no right to privacy in this sense

> I'm surprised we're not seeing heaps of lawsuits here.

Why do you think that is?

You don't have a right to privacy. It should be covered under the 9th amendment, but the supreme court generally just ignores that amendment.

Edit: I see people don't like this comment, so here's an article about it from Wex law [1] (read under "Roe's Overturning"). The part of the Dobbs decision was removing a right to privacy and promising that it could be revisited in overturning other cases like Griswald.

The 9th amendment has never been used to establish a right to privacy, but then I don't think the 9th has ever been used to establish any right. We've used the 14th in the past to establish that right and now it seems that's no longer good law.

> While it is unclear to what extent that may have on the right to privacy in the current time; it is likely that the case law around this right will continue to evolve with more recent Supreme Court decisions.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_privacy

It’s a series of tubes! It’s not a big truck!

How about a second internet ?

No, no verification. From the post:

> "Nothing in the bill requires a passport scan or a face scan at setup. It’s self-declared, the same way most apps ask your birthday today, just centralized once at the OS level instead of repeated app by app."

as Stallman would say, that is a userland issue not a GNU/Linux issue ;P

A Linux distribution is

Not verify. Voluntarily attest an age bracket.

Storing age is no different to storing name or address to me, it’s just a field in /etc/passwd, and root can change it.

In the sense that a website could just ask your OS if you are over a certain age and that age was self declared? That seems fine to me, but why can't the websites just ask me for my self declared age?

That's how things used to be and that makes more sense in my opinion because an OS isn't the thing displaying content. It just run whatever it is told to run.

Instead of the client sending the user's age to the server, why not make the server send a minimum age to the client? The client is welcome to block content without disclosing personal information to the server. This is as secure as sending an unverified age to the servet.

It started with showing ID at airports and now we have to take off our shoes. Slippery slope is the actual modus operandi of government.

Making a stupid idea more convenient does not make it less stupid.

Dystopian nightmares are built from tiny "oh, that's not too bad, just a little step further. Not much different from what we already have"

You can personally avoid those websites, if you philosophically disagree with those terms. Good luck avoiding the operating system.

Does this mean you need to register your children and their ages with your smart fridge?

The Epsteinocracy wants to know how many children you have and exactly how young they are.

It's a feature that states can (mostly) decide for themselves what laws they want to live under.

Fuck that. Competition and diversity is way better. Anyine who fucks up can just change their laws later.

Seems impossible to enforce but the goal I suppose is to hit the biggest players to force a trickle down on average users.

Just make it a liability for social media companies. Let them figure it out. This is how we age gate everything else.

It's only ever brought up by people with absolutely nothing to contribute to the conversation. So you've got that going for you.