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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
They want to ID everyone, and have all user generated content attributed to a known, identified individual.
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]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.
Really miss the old internet.
mothballed•1h ago
ranger_danger•1h ago
paxys•1h ago
malfist•1h ago
thinkingtoilet•1h ago
mothballed•1h ago
--------- 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.
15155•58m ago
If you mean at a store, a regulated vendor, you are incorrect.
thinkingtoilet•27m ago