Illinois introduces OS-level age verification law(legiscan.com)
legiscan.com
Illinois introduces OS-level age verification law
https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB3977/2025
73 comments
Discipline seems to be what you're after.
When my dad told me to stop doing something, I stopped doing it. Because the consequences were guaranteed, and not fun.
When my dad told me to stop doing something, I stopped doing it. Because the consequences were guaranteed, and not fun.
I mirror what you're saying but non-gentle parenting along with corporal punishment can take a strong psychological toll on a child (speaking from experience). It took me quite a while to find my voice because I a had not-so-great childhood all in the name of obedience and discipline.
But I also see, the new generation of parents taking gentle parenting to an extreme raising feral iPad kids who call their moms a bitch.
I really don't think there's an optimal framework for proper parenting but a firm hand delivered gently and logically seems to be a good starting point.
But I also see, the new generation of parents taking gentle parenting to an extreme raising feral iPad kids who call their moms a bitch.
I really don't think there's an optimal framework for proper parenting but a firm hand delivered gently and logically seems to be a good starting point.
I didn't say anything about corporal punishment. I believe it works, but everyone should use discipline specific to the child, IMO.
Kid isn't supposed to make a hotspot but does anyway? Lost that phone. Kid is playing games on the PC? Remove the games. Etc.
If the children aren't listening to their father, the problem isn't android parental controls.
Kid isn't supposed to make a hotspot but does anyway? Lost that phone. Kid is playing games on the PC? Remove the games. Etc.
If the children aren't listening to their father, the problem isn't android parental controls.
The buzzword you’re looking for is authoritative parenting. It’s about setting boundaries from love instead of fear and demonstrating mutual respect. It’s a lot easier to get a kid to listen to screen limits when they see you as a loving and responsible person, and especially when you have fun things to do with them off of a screen, and a real relationship with them.
Thanks for putting it into (much better) words haha. It sounds exactly like what I was trying to describe.
I think part of the problem is that we decided at some point that 18 is an age where you become an adult, which for some things in life is honestly way too young and for some things maybe too old but nuance is hard.
It seems to me that giving young kids devices is a bad idea in general?
I'm not sure what the age is when not having one becomes a greater liability for them than having one but I really feel strongly that creating laws around this is clumsy and the issue is still generally poorly understood.
Let's not create laws around stuff we don't really understand well yet?
I'm not a parent so I wish I didn't have a dog in this fight but legislation like this forces me too.
It seems to me that giving young kids devices is a bad idea in general?
I'm not sure what the age is when not having one becomes a greater liability for them than having one but I really feel strongly that creating laws around this is clumsy and the issue is still generally poorly understood.
Let's not create laws around stuff we don't really understand well yet?
I'm not a parent so I wish I didn't have a dog in this fight but legislation like this forces me too.
Devices are too useful for too many things. Though sometimes I wonder if maybe the amish are right.
> Android won't let me block hotspot at all (which they have turned on so their can use their school device after I turn the router off for the night). I can limit a game to only 5 minutes - but they have a dozen games like and that is an hour between them all (both not enough to really get into the game, and way too much time when they really do need a study break). I can block youtube, but if there is an educational video they need I have to unblock everything not just that one (or a limited selection). There are new play a game websites popping up daily, and when they to every kid in school is playing until we block it (or more likely the school blocks it as they are all playing in class on the school device) - but trying to block all but a whitelisted set of websites is no better since there are so many legitimate ones teachers really do need kids to see.
Personally, I think this is the wrong approach. Why block internet access at all? Why block gaming? Why try to helicopter parent to this extent? Block some harmful stuff if you can, but other than that focus on having the tasks be completed, now on how they do them.
Personally, I think this is the wrong approach. Why block internet access at all? Why block gaming? Why try to helicopter parent to this extent? Block some harmful stuff if you can, but other than that focus on having the tasks be completed, now on how they do them.
Well, legislating can proceed in big steps or smaller steps. Some places tried a big step: mandatory mass surveillance on everything every does with any device. That backfired in the public opinion, and rightfully so. Now these places like California and Illinois are trying a YAGNI approach to this, trying to make the minimum necessary changes. Right now it's porn and microtransactions, but it's easy to see the same mechanism could be extended to games - and that wouldn't be bad. Alongside the setting to enable porn, there could be a setting to enable games, or a setting to disable the device after a certain hour.
For the cellular data issue, you can set a SIM pin so when the device is turned off and on, they need you to enter the pin to access cellular data
But it only asks for the pin on boot which probably isn't that helpful
Sure it is, shut down the phone when its "quitting time" and then if they turn it back on, thats ok, internets disabled
Have you thought about creating building a faraday cage into your house so all internet has to go through the router's hardline?
You don’t need a full house Faraday cage, just build a SCIF in a basement room and require the family to go there for all computing needs.
May I suggest an AI coparent? I'm half-joking, but theoretically AI should eventually be able to take your high level intent and use it to apply appropriate restrictions to your children's phones.
This bill isn't about actually solving a problem - it a feel-good measure aimed to make it appear that the legislator is actually doing something, in the same way that every other "it's for the children" law has been created.
Which is not to say it shouldn't be wholeheartedly opposed, but there's going to be pushback on that and it's going to be difficult to overcome.
Which is not to say it shouldn't be wholeheartedly opposed, but there's going to be pushback on that and it's going to be difficult to overcome.
It doesn't have to solve 100% of the problem to be useful.
> The parent controls on devices is terrible.
Which is IMHO my take on what should be done.
1. require functioning parent controls (here its also worth considering the abuse of parent controls). A problem here is the absence of a proper competing market of (phone) operating systems...
2. use parent controls to "anchor"/set the age/age category. I.e. NOT age verification, just age indication.
3. propagate them similar but not the same as with the Californian law, where possible do the decision before starting a program/fully loading the website etc. (1)
4. allow exception to be set (incl. per "origin" i.e. app, but also sub app e.g. browser:<domain>), it's a parenting tool not a state enforced
5. make it explicitly a non goal for this to be "hard to hack" or anything like that, it's a parenting tool not a banking tool. Proper trust management in a parent child relationship still matters and replacing it with "technology" is unlikely to end up well.
6. where possible leave the decision to the parent controls
7. Age categories are geographically/standard/age scoped, for most apps/site they only have one age gate and can just list them, potentially with content group hints, e.g. `us:pg:13,horror;de:fsk:12,horror` if the the user is in idk. uk the parent controls can make the decision, which might involve parent settings. E.g. a German parent probably wants to treat `us:pg:13,violence` as 14+ and very conservative people in the US want to treat `de:fsk:12,non-erotic-nudity` as 16+. For apps which serve content on a feed it's more shitty as they really want to be given the age gate instead of providing the contents age on access. This doesn't mean that they can't check the age gate for every peace of content "when serving it" (pitching back control to the parents controls) but still need a general age category, which will leak parent controls country, most times that will happen anyway by IP country of origin. So should work?
8. IP country of origin != age gate law which should apply. While legally not fully wrong to treat the same parents would be very surprised if their parent control allow/forbid things when they are on a holiday trip or because their child connected to a VPN tunneled hot spot... This loops back to 6. to give the decisions to the parent controls instead of the app/site/service.
9. criminal liability for intentional miss-classification of age gates (the "intentional" part matter a lot here).
Which is IMHO my take on what should be done.
1. require functioning parent controls (here its also worth considering the abuse of parent controls). A problem here is the absence of a proper competing market of (phone) operating systems...
2. use parent controls to "anchor"/set the age/age category. I.e. NOT age verification, just age indication.
3. propagate them similar but not the same as with the Californian law, where possible do the decision before starting a program/fully loading the website etc. (1)
4. allow exception to be set (incl. per "origin" i.e. app, but also sub app e.g. browser:<domain>), it's a parenting tool not a state enforced
5. make it explicitly a non goal for this to be "hard to hack" or anything like that, it's a parenting tool not a banking tool. Proper trust management in a parent child relationship still matters and replacing it with "technology" is unlikely to end up well.
6. where possible leave the decision to the parent controls
7. Age categories are geographically/standard/age scoped, for most apps/site they only have one age gate and can just list them, potentially with content group hints, e.g. `us:pg:13,horror;de:fsk:12,horror` if the the user is in idk. uk the parent controls can make the decision, which might involve parent settings. E.g. a German parent probably wants to treat `us:pg:13,violence` as 14+ and very conservative people in the US want to treat `de:fsk:12,non-erotic-nudity` as 16+. For apps which serve content on a feed it's more shitty as they really want to be given the age gate instead of providing the contents age on access. This doesn't mean that they can't check the age gate for every peace of content "when serving it" (pitching back control to the parents controls) but still need a general age category, which will leak parent controls country, most times that will happen anyway by IP country of origin. So should work?
8. IP country of origin != age gate law which should apply. While legally not fully wrong to treat the same parents would be very surprised if their parent control allow/forbid things when they are on a holiday trip or because their child connected to a VPN tunneled hot spot... This loops back to 6. to give the decisions to the parent controls instead of the app/site/service.
9. criminal liability for intentional miss-classification of age gates (the "intentional" part matter a lot here).
I think its the murphy's law/hyrum's law and combine that with rebel nature and you really can't do nothing about it. The only thing one can do is maybe reduce the ease of things for example but I have a feeling that will only make things go through different mediums and I am not sure if banning all mediums might be the correct approach but that's up for debate.
Speaking from personal experience, To leave bad habits, I think that kids need identity change. Maybe one can try changing Identity with incentives and environment but perhaps maybe one can try changing Identity with having a thought process as well.
It's like, "teach a man how to fish and he can eat fish for the rest of his life" My point is, teach kids how to think and yes, even then, these addictions will happen but have faith within kids and give them support systems. Every addiction ultimately derives from a form of insecurity and sometimes its circular because the addiction becomes the point of insecurity and this is why addiction can be hard to get out of too. Ultimately, A kid all wants to know is that even with his flaws, he's accepted within society and that they can be successful (whatever-it-might-mean for them)
That being said, One of the best things the world can probably do is give a life of abundance-in-general to us. Not riches just "enough". Poor kids feel like they are helpless so they get addicted, Rich kids feel like nothing matters so they get addicted, the middle class kids are uncertain about their future and they get addicted as a form of gaining control (in my feelings)
Though, If I have to sum up everything that I wrote, it would be that please try leaving a better world for the next generation (us) and we will appreciate it and hopefully trying doing the same for our next generation too hopefully and many of those actions are individual, often-private. The world is feeling quite chaotic nowadays so I feel like nobody is prepared to deal with it and as such each generation copes up in one way or another and taking control from one another which is also relevant to the article.
The whole discussion is way too nuanced. One can write so much about it and this can also lead to action-paralysis. I had even written more words somehow responding to ya[0]
[0]: My Original Thoughts that got quite long also showing the action-paralysis/nuance of the problem too in a way [Took the most relevant points of discussion from it]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260312223938/https://privatebi...
Speaking from personal experience, To leave bad habits, I think that kids need identity change. Maybe one can try changing Identity with incentives and environment but perhaps maybe one can try changing Identity with having a thought process as well.
It's like, "teach a man how to fish and he can eat fish for the rest of his life" My point is, teach kids how to think and yes, even then, these addictions will happen but have faith within kids and give them support systems. Every addiction ultimately derives from a form of insecurity and sometimes its circular because the addiction becomes the point of insecurity and this is why addiction can be hard to get out of too. Ultimately, A kid all wants to know is that even with his flaws, he's accepted within society and that they can be successful (whatever-it-might-mean for them)
That being said, One of the best things the world can probably do is give a life of abundance-in-general to us. Not riches just "enough". Poor kids feel like they are helpless so they get addicted, Rich kids feel like nothing matters so they get addicted, the middle class kids are uncertain about their future and they get addicted as a form of gaining control (in my feelings)
Though, If I have to sum up everything that I wrote, it would be that please try leaving a better world for the next generation (us) and we will appreciate it and hopefully trying doing the same for our next generation too hopefully and many of those actions are individual, often-private. The world is feeling quite chaotic nowadays so I feel like nobody is prepared to deal with it and as such each generation copes up in one way or another and taking control from one another which is also relevant to the article.
The whole discussion is way too nuanced. One can write so much about it and this can also lead to action-paralysis. I had even written more words somehow responding to ya[0]
[0]: My Original Thoughts that got quite long also showing the action-paralysis/nuance of the problem too in a way [Took the most relevant points of discussion from it]: https://web.archive.org/web/20260312223938/https://privatebi...
Is there a common group of lobbyists trying to push these laws in multiple states? It doesn't seem like a coincidence that these are all popping up around the same time.
It's actually two templates that are being copied by different states: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the...
It's usually not a coincidence that several people or groups of people faced with similar environments perform similar actions. All the hikers ran away screaming around the same time, because they all saw the bear attack.
This Illinois law seems to be based on the California one, which is the completely unintrusive one with no mass surveillance or anything like that. It says every operating system must have a parental controls feature, to be enabled or disabled by the device owner, and every app must respect it.
In addition, unlike the California one, the Illinois one specifies certain specific things that must be parentally controlled, such as financial transactions, and addictive feeds. All of it can be overridden by the device owner without providing ID or anything. It also clearly specifies the penalty for a violation: it's to be treated as consumer fraud/unfair trading practices.
This Illinois law seems to be based on the California one, which is the completely unintrusive one with no mass surveillance or anything like that. It says every operating system must have a parental controls feature, to be enabled or disabled by the device owner, and every app must respect it.
In addition, unlike the California one, the Illinois one specifies certain specific things that must be parentally controlled, such as financial transactions, and addictive feeds. All of it can be overridden by the device owner without providing ID or anything. It also clearly specifies the penalty for a violation: it's to be treated as consumer fraud/unfair trading practices.
These laws also won't work. Kids are smart, and it only takes one to figure out a bypass and all kids in the school know (and they pass it to other schools).
The purpose of the law is to surveil adults.
Nobody actually cares about children, they're just political weapons used to justify everything they want to do. Everybody knows only literal child rapists would ever dare to argue against child protection laws.
Nobody actually cares about children, they're just political weapons used to justify everything they want to do. Everybody knows only literal child rapists would ever dare to argue against child protection laws.
There is no surveillance in this law - please stop spreading FUD. Some other laws in other places, with similar stated purposes, mandate surveillance.
I'll say it again: the purpose of these laws as a whole is to surveil adults.
Even if this specific law isn't doing that right now, it's quite easy to see how it will eventually. Without surveillance, the law is ineffective. All you need to do is generate some moral outrage at how the children are supposedly bypassing the insecure system and bam, instant scope expansion.
Look at the metagame being played over the long term. It's got nothing to do with children and everything to do with control.
Even if this specific law isn't doing that right now, it's quite easy to see how it will eventually. Without surveillance, the law is ineffective. All you need to do is generate some moral outrage at how the children are supposedly bypassing the insecure system and bam, instant scope expansion.
Look at the metagame being played over the long term. It's got nothing to do with children and everything to do with control.
I do not see how adding an age checkbox in the user account creation page leads to mass surveillance.
This isn't enough! We can't trust the self-reported checkbox. The kids just install a system that always reports all accounts as 18+. We must make such systems illegal. How? I dunno, can't we make it so CPUs only run government signed code? Yeah, let's do that! Now the children will be safe!
Lots of things are illegal but people still do them anyway. Sometimes the law succeeds if it only reduces the prevalence of something. People drove 100, the speed limit was set to 50, people now drive 65. Was the speed limit successful? It depends how you define success.
Whoever they are, they're staying VERY quiet. Usually, the group that's agitating for some stupid law or another isn't satisfied to simply slip it to lawmakers, they usually take to social media and post about how great the law is and praise said lawmaker for proposing it.
I'm watching, whoever you are. You can't hide forever. Your ego will eventually betray you.
I'm watching, whoever you are. You can't hide forever. Your ego will eventually betray you.
It’s ICMEC, backed by Meta, Google, and the Gates Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is also involved.
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rr3f3n/followup_to_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the...
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rr3f3n/followup_to_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the...
No doubt. There's some kind of extremely organized conspiracy to erode freedom worldwide by destroying general purpose computing and installing surveillance.
This junk has even showed up in my country. They used the exact same rationalizations. It was an obvious attempt to regulate social media in order to consolidate political power.
This junk has even showed up in my country. They used the exact same rationalizations. It was an obvious attempt to regulate social media in order to consolidate political power.
One thing that I find interesting and has me wondering, it is this quote from the article I linked below:
>During the legislative window for AB 1043, none of the major open-source institutions submitted formal comment or testimony.
https://www.linuxteck.com/california-age-verification-law-li...
>During the legislative window for AB 1043, none of the major open-source institutions submitted formal comment or testimony.
https://www.linuxteck.com/california-age-verification-law-li...
People are slowly realizing that the OSI, FSF, and Linux Foundation have become colonized by MBA flopouts, professional fleabags who jump from one 501(c)(3) to another, collecting a paycheck and laundering influence. If you took the board of the OSI, FSF, and Linux Foundation, and the boards of the World Wildlife Foundation, the ACLU, and the NRA, and scrambled them all, they would duly show up to work the next day and probably wouldn't notice anything beyond their desks being rearranged.
What do people think the chance is that someone from the OSI, FSF, or Linux Foundation WROTE this bill? Curious where people's mental models are at.
What do people think the chance is that someone from the OSI, FSF, or Linux Foundation WROTE this bill? Curious where people's mental models are at.
It’s ICMEC, supported by Meta, Google, and the Gates Foundation. And the Heritage Foundation.
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rr3f3n/followup_to_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the...
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rr3f3n/followup_to_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rmhxk1/i_pulled_the...
So it's just Zuckerberg building a moat around Meta. Lovely.
Or maybe he's just anti-free-speech because people keep criticizing him. Hard to tell.
Or maybe he's just anti-free-speech because people keep criticizing him. Hard to tell.
>What do people think the chance is that someone from the OSI, FSF, or Linux Foundation WROTE this bill?
I would not be surprised, but I think it is more likely these organizations are staying quiet due to "donations" from large corporations. Or tax deductible bribes. I know OSI and the Linux Foundation is owned by big tech, but the FSF surprises me.
I would not be surprised, but I think it is more likely these organizations are staying quiet due to "donations" from large corporations. Or tax deductible bribes. I know OSI and the Linux Foundation is owned by big tech, but the FSF surprises me.
or maybe there's just, like, nothing actually wrong with this bill. It requires an age input on the user creation page, and that's it.
That's how it always starts. First they get a law in place, then they mutate the terms until it accomplishes what they ___actually___ wanted. For instance, first they give the federal government the ability to inspect citizens at the border because somehow, the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Then they define everything within 50 miles of the border a "special border zone" there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Then later, it's 200 miles.
So where does this leave open source operating systems?
I also want to know how they think this assinine system will guarantee no one can lie to the computer about how old they are.
I also want to know how they think this assinine system will guarantee no one can lie to the computer about how old they are.
Debian, Fedora et al. will just comply. It's really no problem to do so - it just requires an age input on the user creation page, and for that to be saved somewhere. Porn apps mustn't work if the user is under 18, but I don't think they distribute porn apps.
If you build your own operating system out of open-source parts, then of course you don't need to comply with consumer product law, since you're not making a consumer product.
If you import an operating system from outside of the US and sell it, responsibility for compliance is on you, like any other imported consumer product.
If you build your own operating system out of open-source parts, then of course you don't need to comply with consumer product law, since you're not making a consumer product.
If you import an operating system from outside of the US and sell it, responsibility for compliance is on you, like any other imported consumer product.
Debian has not signaled compliance and current discussion on the mailing list seems to be against it.
NixOS does not plan to comply.
OpenBSD will not comply.
Gentoo devs don’t seem to believe it applies to them since they technically just provide a blueprint for you to build a system from source.
FreeBSD seems to be leaning against compliance.
System76 PopOS seems to be willing to comply with California but no states that require attestation like the NY bill.
Omarchy is aggressively noncompliant.
There will be many options.
NixOS does not plan to comply.
OpenBSD will not comply.
Gentoo devs don’t seem to believe it applies to them since they technically just provide a blueprint for you to build a system from source.
FreeBSD seems to be leaning against compliance.
System76 PopOS seems to be willing to comply with California but no states that require attestation like the NY bill.
Omarchy is aggressively noncompliant.
There will be many options.
I wish the widespread fervent hatred against the "user is over 18" checkbox was applied to, like, Cloudflare captchas, or something that actually matters.
Cloudflare does not force FOSS devs to implement changes and accept potential legal liability, while opening the door to future legislative spec-by-fiat. There is a world of difference.
yes... it did? If you're a FOSS browser developer, Cloudflare forced you to pass Cloudflare browser fingerprinting and implement enough JavaScript to pass the CAPTCHA. Which is much harder than an over-18 checkbox.
Legally? Like through the law? If I don’t pass CAPTCHA I get fined and/or go to jail? Wow that sucks!
No you just can't pay your rent online and you get evicted
I would not want any open OS to comply. Time to stand up.
They don't matter. They'll be outlawed soon enough. Their ultimate objective is to make it illegal for a computer to run unauthorized software. One day they will make it so it's illegal for a computer to boot into a non-government approved operating system.
If there's any good intentions in the bill, I guess the end-state must be having a way to mark an account as a kid's account and have that user's access limited. This is what old parental controls look like on phones that can be handed off to kids.
That's literally what the bill says
Yeah, and the constitution literally says that many things shouldn't be happening.
Pens are a weapon for more civilised times than the current one.
Pens are a weapon for more civilised times than the current one.
Then why argue anything at all?
I’m very torn because I think if you accept the idea that age verification is going to happen. An anonymous os level signal is probably the best way to do it vs using some data hungry vendor and sending them all my info and having them collect data on every site I visit. But also I’m not thrilled because I think parents should decide etc. But pragmatically this is a good solution vs what’s happening with age verification solutions that pop up when I use apple private relay and my ip address is showing as being from some southern state.
Kids are circumventing this so now we need to enforce it with cryptographic attestation of unmodified approved software on an approved device.
And anyone who doesn't support this is obviously a child raping pedophile terrorist.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47359401 for a project planning to actively fight these laws on the technical level.
Legal/political means will also be required.
Legal/political means will also be required.
forcing the OS to authenticate the age of the person using the machine? age verification can easily be done by using the DMV as a conduit or using login.gov as a conduit or using id.me as a conduit. these interfaces are already used by dozens of government agencies to authenticate citizens of the United States, and there doesn't need to be any special software installed on the machine
Aside from the fact that legislating how operating systems can be designed is an extremely bad idea, I don't understand how you can create state laws for ubiquitus or open source software that aren't an absolute joke.
How is this going to play out in reality?
Are OSes going to ban sales in Illinois?
Are the 8,000 flavors of Linux going to comply? What about adduser?
Will we be using bootleg or foreign OSes soon?
What an asinine law.
Are OSes going to ban sales in Illinois?
Are the 8,000 flavors of Linux going to comply? What about adduser?
Will we be using bootleg or foreign OSes soon?
What an asinine law.
Over time, require trusted boot and a TPM. Require a signed age-verification cert to get tokens to access io devices and net. It feels like part of a long play to claw unregulated general purpose computing out of the hands of the masses. Or, at least, get as much as can be moved into the cloud which can be easily surveilled and shut down.
I'm actually interested in the more mundane things, like how would this play out with self check out? Calculators? Vending machines…
I'm getting really tired of people trying to use "for the children" to be able to identify every user and remove anonymity from the internet.
There's no identification in this bill. You know what makes me angrier than age verification requirements? People complaining about age verification requirements that don't exist.
I'm a big believer in the slippery slope, once the smallest hurdle is passed, it's a small thing to say "Oh anyone can lie, so now we need them to ensure it's true."
The content is inaccessible and I can't find any cached copy, so I'm burying this for now. Will restore if/when there's an accessible source.
From the General Assembly's website:
https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?DocNum=3977&GAID...
This is proposed legislation, isn't it? Proposed bills are generally off-topic on HN; they're a dime a dozen.
I just provided a more direct link but yeah it is just proposed at this point. The age assurance part appears to be substantially similar (very similar verbiage) to the bills that have already passed in California and Colorado though so I guess we'll see it again in a few weeks or months at this point.
I can access it fine? The site loads after a quick bot check.
Same, worked with an automatic bot check, not even a captcha.
Aha, OK. I see what's going on. For reasons to do with a yak-shaving process that was required for our HN moderation software to work, I use Chromium, and it seems that requests from Chromium user-agents are blocked on that server, perhaps due to a presumption that they're bots.
But yes, as tptacek points out, proposed legislation is off-topic here, unless it's effectively certain it will pass.
But yes, as tptacek points out, proposed legislation is off-topic here, unless it's effectively certain it will pass.
The parent controls on devices is terrible. Android won't let me block hotspot at all (which they have turned on so their can use their school device after I turn the router off for the night). I can limit a game to only 5 minutes - but they have a dozen games like and that is an hour between them all (both not enough to really get into the game, and way too much time when they really do need a study break). I can block youtube, but if there is an educational video they need I have to unblock everything not just that one (or a limited selection). There are new play a game websites popping up daily, and when they to every kid in school is playing until we block it (or more likely the school blocks it as they are all playing in class on the school device) - but trying to block all but a whitelisted set of websites is no better since there are so many legitimate ones teachers really do need kids to see.
When you read the above remember not only do I need a solution it needs to be one I can figure out. My degree is human-computer interaction and I'm not sure I can design something I as an expert could make work - but I still need something.
Again, this problem is not new. However parents are still mad about the situation and governments who don't really have any better ideas see a need to solve it.