[cwillu]

That would seem to require that the act provide a shield against liabilities involving minors, which doesn't seem compatible with the notion that it's such a low-friction mechanism. A minor installs debian on a raspberry py, clicks “I am 23 years old and then an “adult dating” site isn't allowed to repeat the question?

If anything, this seems like a convenient path to mandating far more restrictive measures under the guise of “fixing an obvious loophole in the law”.

[packetlost]

There's clear liability put on the owner of the device, which cannot be a child, but the child's parent. The "Account Holder" definition and subsequent penalties make that pretty clear. The parent is ultimately responsible for locking down the child's account and inputting the correct information.

[hellojesus]

What happens when the child downloads a Linux iso and then live boots or overwrites the install? I have a hard time understanding how this law does not purposefully set the foundation from which they can push for actual ID verification.

[packetlost]

It's the parents responsibility regardless, they own the device and it's their child. This is exactly the correct way to do this, if you must.

[hellojesus]

My contention is that there is no reason to do this, and it shouldn't be done.

[packetlost]

My contention is that I vastly prefer this to what is demonstrably already happening, which is every 3rd party webapp implementing or paying yet another 3rd party to collect my ID and face scan for the privilege of using their service.