[inigyou]

Sounds very similar to the California bill that passed a few months ago - the one HN absolutely hated. The person who does device initial setup says whether the account is a child or adult, and transmits this to websites so they can block the content appropriately. (The site transmitting a rating doesn't work because most sites that aren't porn sites have mixed content )https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47181208

[Aurornis]

Not the same. I’m suggesting the site is required to transmit a category or rating and then end user devices have the option of filtering.

The word “option” is a key difference. I don’t think we should be forcing everyone to go through these age checks or thinking we can actual ban under-16s or other age groups from sites. There’s no way to do this without forcing everyone through an ID process, which is where a lot of these laws are heading.

Make it a parental controls thing and spread information about how parental controls work.

[inigyou]

But sites don't have categories, they almost all have mixed content. Twitter is social media, but is it also a porn site? Well that depends which account you're viewing. And whether your feed is a porn site can vary every single time you view it.

[wizzwizz4]

Then tag each <section>, rather than each site. To make auditing easier, don't have websites as large as Twitter.

[inigyou]

If your proposal is to make twitter illegal to protect the children, you're as bad as everyone else who is saying to do dumb things to protect the children

[pibaker]

GP's proposal does content filtering on the user's machine. Your age info never leaves your own device. The Californian proposal requires telling the service your age. I can see why HN absolutely hates the later given the HN crowd's general attitude towards data collection.