Linux may get a hall pass from one state age-check bill, but Congress plays hall monitor The prospect of OS-level age checks applying to open source systems is a serious concern for FOSS advocates. Campaigners appear to have secured proposed exemptions for open source operating systems, code repositories, and containers in one US state, but stricter federal legislation has already been introduced in Congress. Carl …
At least then people might wake up and see the true nature of the threat, and how far it's gone while they were busy bingewatching crap and cheering on $MEGASTAR and $SPORTS_TEAM.
Most are content to remain oblivious until they're already identified digital peons in a consumerized gulag. By then it's too late.
Unless your project leaders live in the US or bank in the US, you can just tell the fundamentalists to fuck off, and the rest of us can download and use free software.
Tor still works. VPNs still work. Anti-download activists have lost every single battle since before the days of Napster.
The whole idea should be shot down. Those hosting content where age restrictions exist should be bearing the cost. Just exempting open source from the offloaded requirement, could be another reason to ignore anything but windows, mac, android, or iphone. It smacks of made for IE all over again.
> Those having children should be supervising their children, not forcing the rest of us to live in a world made for kids.
The real problem is not parents allegedly not supervising their children.
The problem is adults that want to supervise other adults under the pretext of supervising other person's children.
Amazon pushed to have internet sales taxed at P.O.S. because Amazon had AWS software that could determine tax nation wide. I've never seen that talked about but the lobbying made it obvious what Amazon was doing.
Facebook, Google, Amazon and all the rest are pushing age verification because it's the 1 thing that "agentic" AI can do right now and companies would require a ridiculous amount of "agents".
Investors want a silver bullet app for AI, so here's identity verification nationwide, for everything, all the time.
"If social networks were obliged to have robust age verification, and users were compelled to use their real names, real faces, and bear full legal responsibility for their actions, then there would be much less reason to try to pass the buck on to the vendors of the tools used to access those online services."
If age verification had been in place when I was growing up with access to the internet, I'd never have been able to to communicate with a great many people who have since become long-term friends, nor explore a broad swath of more niche interests (console homebrew, programming) because I wouldn't have been able to ask the questions that helped me along.
Parents would not have done it on my behalf (I was told off for having an email that wasn't Hotmail - that was the only one they knew, other than Yahoo) because we were always taught to give as little info as possible online. That means using pseudonyms, emails that aren't forename.surname69@domain.tld, and so on. I would certainly not have been allowed to get Linux, given the " l33t hacker" image it used to foster.
In effect my current knowledge of computing and many other topics would have been severely stunted, and many friendships never able to be made. I will use fake details whenever possible, and this kind of thinking would simply shut me out of the modern internet entirely. I've no interest in Facebook, Twitter and the like, but think of all the StackOverflows, Githubs, even Runescapes with guild forums, that would never have been able to be accessed without giving away huge amounts of personal info. Age verification locks out access not just to children but to anyone who values their privacy. Many still disagree given the modern internet, but I will never stop pushing back against it.
How does the Federal House of Representatives bill stand with regard to the 10th Amendment? The constitution doesn't delegate identity verification or age-gating to the federal government so that power is reserved to the States and people. I presume there are Supreme Court rulings that extend this kind of power to the Federal government?
(Mainly, there are others.)
>> It might even effectively put all the big social networks out of business.
That is unlikely.
But it would definitely put a lot of small social networks, small hobby sites out of business. They would not have the resources to 1. Police their web sites for every post and comment made. 2. Defend against the inevitable lawsuits which will come their way due to a 'bad' post.
The whole idea of age verification at the OS level is crazy. But that won't stop it being implemented. I can imagine the conversation in an oak-panelled room, over glasses of fine wine. Microsoft and Apple reps are there saying: we can do this, no problem.
> But it would definitely put a lot of small social networks, small hobby sites out of business.
No, I don't think so.
1. You don't need comments.
2. You can outsource comment-handling to other sites.
3. Those sites could, with more enlightened legislation, say "mandatory real names only, because you accept liability for your own comments and so they must be verifiably yours." Own your own words.
The core is John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fckwad Theory:
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies
It's time to end it. No more Anonymous Cowards. No more pseudonyms. Sign your words or keep 'em to yourself.
Person to person comms, all right. Do what thou wilt.
You want it public? Then it carries your name and your face, forever.
Counterpoint: El Reg and many other tech sites which share a similar ethos.
Take away comments, or force commenters to disclose their government identities, and engagement plummets. Unlike Facebook, the engagement and commentary at these places is both useful and insightful. Readers will go somewhere else or just stop weighing in.
The identity fetishists understand this. When everything someone says is tied to an unchanging government identity, people tend to self-censor and blend in with perceived consensus. Those seeking social control find great utility in crafting perceived consensus and making it easier for people to not question things and just go along. Thus, a small number of people can control what "everyone" believes (or appears to believe).
I love most your work, but you're wrong on this one, and I don't care if you have a vulture icon next to your name.
This comment would not exist if it had to be tied to my meatspace identity and cross-linked to everything I do everywhere and available to everyone who wants to know everything about me. Thus why free speech advocates are so damn insistent that societies cannot have freedom of thought without anonymous and pseudonymous speech.
Well, I got a surprise today. I wouldn't have thought you would support this or express any of the very bad arguments you've just used. You'd think that someone who covers open source and participates actively in the comments section here where people use pseudonyms almost all the time would understand how many people do not want everything they've ever said tied permanently to their identity and how there are websites that benefit from having comments.
Sounds like Colorado has realized open source is very much an international effort and tool, and certainly can not be held subject to the whims of one paltry state in one of hundreds of nations. In fact, I'd say that the general philosophy of open source goes against this whole identification and authorization regime the fascist-minded surveillance states of the world would like to force down the world's collective throats, citizens of their nation or not.
In fact, the more security paranoid a nation is, the more they want to track and identify foreigners as well as citizens so they know who to "blacklist" from the visa database.
Chosen, DIY identities is also very much a part of the open source ethos. We can choose to use what works for us, where we need it. The folks so insistent on mandated, government identity also expect it to be singular, universal, and unchanging from birth to death.
Guessing Canada probably didn't assign you the identity of Groo.
The latest version of the bill I can find is; https://leg.colorado.gov/bill_files/112795/download and that does not except anything mentioned.
If only specifically "open source OS's" are excepted, unfortunately the kernel, Linux won't fall under that exception, as it's not even half source-available and it's not an OS.
But I guess GNU/Linux-libre would qualify, as that's 100% free software that also happens to qualify for "open source".
The MSM companies are more and more forced by legal cases to check their user's ages, which in practice means to identify the user. In essence their is nothing wrong with that.
The problem is with where this verification is done. This is more of a lobby to have verification at OS system level, so MSM falls back to the OS for this purpose.
As might anybody else.... This is a security nightmare.
Age verification rules as currently laid out are catastrophically bad; as one tiny example, my business needs to pre-install and pre-configure Windows PCs in order to deliver our products, and as it stands, proposed state laws would make it illegal for us to do so.
Getting rid of section 230 is the opposite of a good idea. It wouldn't just kill big social networks; it would kill *everything*. Every car forum, every niche PHPBB, every comment thread, every mod hosting website, everything that lets anyone say anything or express any idea would instantly be an impossible liability. And it goes without saying that requiring all online (now, defacto, all *period*) communication to be linked to verified IDs and real-name accounts would be anathema to free expression.
I'm hoping (assuming?!) the last paragraph is some kind of in-joke or veiled commentary. I haven't followed El Reg in many a year; maybe I'm missing the context. If not, it's a truly baffling take.
Man, I grew up on Are You Being Served, Red Dwarf, and Keeping Up Appearances. I think I have as solid a grasp of British humor as any yank does. But if that was sarcasm, it wrapped back around on itself *so* dryly and *so* thoroughly that I fear it may not present itself in the way intended.
> "everything that lets anyone say anything or express any idea would instantly be an impossible liability."
Big Tech and Big Government consider that a feature, not a bug.
The identity fetishists obsessed with controlling others would much rather all expression run through a smaller number of larger platforms which themselves are easily controlled.
It's not hypothetical. The Chinese have been doing it for years. Identity fetishists would love to bring Chinese-style "social credit" systems to nations which used to be free.
"Big Tech and Big Government consider that a feature, not a bug."
I'm not so sure about big tech; they tend to want the freedom to make money how they see fit, and repeal of 232 would be, at best, a giant pain. But I certainly wouldn't expect *El Reg* to consider it a feature, which is what was surprising about the last paragraph of the article.
> I'm hoping (assuming?!) the last paragraph is some kind of in-joke or veiled commentary. I haven't followed El Reg in many a year; maybe I'm missing the context. If not, it's a truly baffling take.
I am mystified how you could be baffled by it.
Over on Mastodon -- you know, the social network that's actually free as in speech -- that in particular was singled out for praise:
https://mastodon.scot/@withaveeay/116453366915907902
«
Very sweet last two paragraphs, Liam.
»
https://mastodon.scot/@FaithfullJohn/116453473679022741
«
+1 I was going to say that too! :smile: :applause:
»
I am strongly in favour of free speech, but I am not in favour of anonymity.
I have been online since 1985 and had my own paid email address since 1991. I always use my real name everywhere.
If you want to say it, then stand by it. Everyone who wants to publish their opinions to the internet at large for all to see should be subject to the same responsibility that a professional outlet such as El Reg, same as a newspaper or anything else.
If you are not willing to say it under your real name, then don't say it.
Publishing to the public is not the same as private person-to-person comms. I am happy for those to remain secret and private and protected. But if you want to speak to the world at large, then stand up to do it.
The 21st century belief that using pseudonyms protects you in some way is risible nonsense. It was a disastrously stupid idea in the first place, and its result has been epic amounts of disinformation, much of it backed by Russia, which is too poor to afford a modern military but worked out decades ago that internet psyops are both cheap and effective.
IMHO Brexit was the result of Russian disinformation campaigns. It was certainly funded by Russian money.
E.g.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/how-arron-banks-campaign-ambassador-jim-mellon-made-millions-in-russia-nigel-farage/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/what-we-learned-about-arron-banks-at-fake-news-inquiry/
I also strongly think that both times Trump got elected, Russia helped: it's behind MAGA, Qanon, as well as the antivaxxers and lots of other toxic internet lies.
It is strongly in Russia's favour to weaken the EU, weaken NATO, elect weak corrupt leaders of superpowers, and so on, and unregulated, uncontrolled social networks have misled hundreds of millions of people... many of whom vote.
If the price of getting rid of this is getting rid of social networks, and turning them into tightly-controlled venues where real names are enforced, then bring it on.
A common argument against this is to point out that people in persecuted minorities, of persecuted religions or ethnicities or sexualities or whatever, would lose their freedom of speech. I do not think that preserving the right of people to lie or conceal their identity when publishing to the world is more important than preserving democracy and free countries. If the price of blocking disinformation is some minorities' freedom to anonymously post publicly, that is a price worth paying.
"I am strongly in favour of free speech, but I am not in favour of anonymity."
Excellent idea. You've just shut down a lot of insider information.
How many comments on here are "Anon because....reasons".
I personally wouldn't post a lot of what I have done, because some of it would reveal who I am and with the slightest digging would reveal my past employer and possibly my current one. As I've post multiple time with background knowledge of my previous and current employers work, I'd probably get fired.
"much of it backed by Russia, which is too poor to afford a modern military..."
They seem to be doing quite well in their proxy hot war against NATO right now.
Russian innovations with short/medium-range hypersonic weapons present the main challenge to the United States. These weapons can destabilize the current offense-defense balance that informs the military strategy for both the United States and Russia. The new Russian Khinzal and Zircon hypersonic missiles can defeat U.S. and European air defenses not only through the massing of effects, supported by Russia’s increased production rates, but also due to the weapons ability to maintain its radar defeating plasma layer through the terminal phase when striking static targets. This capability would tilt the offensive advantage in favor of Russia, which could conduct strikes on strategic infrastructure across Europe that hinders the U.S. ability to respond to adversary aggression or come to the aid of NATO allies with resources both inside and outside the theater of operations.
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/hypersonics-and-alliances/
Oh, and Oreshnik, anyone?
