[Dylan16807]

It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.

That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.

[marcus_holmes]

The thing we want (well, that other people want, I have other views) is that large tech companies are not able to brainwash kids.

The thing this creates is liability on parents, or schools, or anyone who provides computer access to children. And access to PII for bad guys (who can ask your computer for your date of birth in this proposal, right?)

[Dylan16807]

> The thing we want (well, that other people want, I have other views) is that large tech companies are not able to brainwash kids.

That has little connection with this law.

And having no age settings at all is where you'll have the most brainwashing.

> The thing this creates is liability on parents, or schools, or anyone who provides computer access to children. And access to PII for bad guys (who can ask your computer for your date of birth in this proposal, right?)

They're already responsible for controlling that. I think they should have more tools to help.

> And access to PII for bad guys (who can ask your computer for your date of birth in this proposal, right?)

Did you look at the law(s)? They get one of four age ranges.

[nickitolas]

I have no experience with minors using Linux. Do they not typically have sudo access?

[cesarb]

> It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.

You are assuming the parent is the administrator of the computer.

[Dylan16807]

I am not assuming that. That's why it's a "can". Parental controls are always "can".

[mittensc]

so the kid boots linux off a usb stick and makes this pointless