They’re basically minimum-viable products that by design can be used to violate the law in California when the Act goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 147 points 6 months ago (30 children)

By the way, the current age verification madness is a coordinated lobbying campaign by Meta

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 6 months ago (24 children)

    To avoid any responsibility for them not moderating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 37 points 6 months ago (18 children)

    Can someone eli5 the idea? I don't get it, even after reading the page. But now I want one.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    They're breaking evil age verification laws on purpose as civil disobedience with cheap hardware

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    OK, the disobedience was the part I didn't get. Thank you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Insofar as part availability isn't insurmountably impacted this also constitutes functional resistance to all manor of censorship and surveillance. If you can code, test on one of these

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    California is adding a requirement for age verification for operating systems (or something like that) so each one of these violates that law by booting into linux.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    Wait are they planing to fine non-age verification compliant devices?

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
    [–] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Brilliant. I'd like to see how the very uninformed legislators deal with this. They will have to publically re-argue first principles

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 13 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    AB 1043 passed the California Assembly 76–0 and the Senate 38–0. Not a single legislator voted against it.

    1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation

    This device does not collect, store, or transmit the age of its user. This is intentional.

    Is there any reason to believe they won't want to make an example out of intentional violators?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    Brilliant! 💪

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Amazing. Where are the build instructions

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    What in leftist infighting hell is even happening in this comment section?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    For some people the world is black and white, I think that law is considered bad by everyone, but for some people complaying to state regulation is a crime against humanity itself.

    It is either puppies or genocide, no in-between, so adding two lines of code for json support of an age field in a systemd module warrants you to be publicly shamed, called names and probably harrassed irl.

    The guy probably just wanted to be able to continue using linux at work, and without that crap he will have to go back to windows

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›