[quincepie]

to me, it's both the slippery slope argument and the lack of real reason other than "protecting minors". operating systems were designed to run the program/programs. You can make applications use this API to determine the user age, or you can just...ask the user in the application itself. I also don't see why this is a requirement rather than an option the same way I don't see why having a Microsoft account is required to install windows or access to internet (without the current workarounds) or even those password reset questions and to some extent asking for first and last name. If I want to add those information, let me do that myself or when i use said software, don't make it a hard requirement.

The bill itself sort of goes against its "purpose". If the purpose is to make a convenient API for stores to know their user, and avoid showing them certain content then why did the bill state: "If an operator has internal clear and convincing information that a user's age is different than the age indicated by a signal received in accordance with this Section, the operator shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user's age."

because many people lie in those forms. Many people on steam will select they were born in 1900, including myself. So how will this API help? the only way for it to be useful is if they later require full verification.

[strongpigeon]

The way I see it (to strongman the bill's position) is that by mandating it at account creation, an adult/parent can ensure that the age is properly set for a minor/child.

That being said, I don't think this bill was that well thought out as the implication are far reaching (will I need to enter an age when provisioning a VM?).

I mostly see it as a clumsy attempt to provide a mechanism for age-category attestation in a way that is more privacy-friendly than Texas's "upload-your-id" law.

[quincepie]

I can see the argument of parents or guardians ensuring the device is properly set for their child, but I feel like age is not the right information to use. But I agree, it's definitely not well thought out.

I feel like if we assume this is in good faith, and they want to make sure adults can ensure minors don't have access to certain content, why would they use age as the information? This can be solved, or even have been solved by having Parental Control feature like in IOS which provides finer options than what you would get with age.

This could OK if this was requiring that any device or operating system have access to parental control in any capacity (either by default or via third party application) and limited for things that would be used by minors so that VMs or other stuff don't have to worry about this. Or, they could mandate products to indicate that the feature exist. That way, a parent can decide what to give their child.