Post B5JrOGMcnsT6gGiGgq by cwebber@social.coop
(DIR) More posts by cwebber@social.coop
(DIR) Post #B5JrOGMcnsT6gGiGgq by cwebber@social.coop
1 likes, 2 repeats
Well this is truly bad. US national level OS-level age verification bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/8250/all-infoThe text of it isn't out yet.EDIT: Well the text is now out and it's as bad as you could imagine. It's not even just that you need to verify your age to access a website... operating systems must verify your age to let you *use a computer at all*EDIT EDIT: Thanks to @Andres4NY for pointing out that it also holds responsible anyone who has any software shipped on the operating system of a computer, meaning FOSS developers eveywhere
(DIR) Post #B5JrOGqkzqZUBioKem by cwebber@social.coop
2 likes, 1 repeats
We don't know who's funding this stuff for sure, there was the vibecoded analysis that came to the conclusion of Meta, but I suspect that could be true but Meta wouldn't be alone.Who stands to benefit from this? A lot of forces of centralization, and anti-LGBTQ orgs:- Microsoft, for sure, since they are seeing Windows' dominance threatened?- Apple, for similar reasons?- Peter Theil and similar surveillance company owners and operators?- Anti-queer orgs and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation?- Cloudflare, who will probably run the age verification paywalls everyone will be forced to deploy?Who's behind this? Who's getting politicians so excited about it? There's such a swell of bipartisan support seemingly out of nowhere, and my suspicion is a lot of that enthusiasm is coming from check-writing.So who's behind it?
(DIR) Post #B5JrOHQCs2vZxfOdua by cwebber@social.coop
2 likes, 2 repeats
If *I* were an investigative journalist, this is a piece I'd be pouring a lot of energy into. I know we have a few investigative journalists on here... maybe someone wants to take it up?
(DIR) Post #B5KFQfl5kuTQv5q5M8 by star@amazonawaws.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber thank you for informing about this, but could you please add a content warning to this post? that'd be very nice c:
(DIR) Post #B5Kpi3EtIyb115MbLM by dj@parcero.casa
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber >If *I* were an investigative journalistJust identify as one, et voila!
(DIR) Post #B5MK7Drw72Cr0TVOQy by Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it
0 likes, 1 repeats
@cwebber Oh, you contributed code to an operating system that someone else used to ship a non-compliant device? Congrats, you're liable.
(DIR) Post #B5MxvfwBvNg0keXnto by jdp23@neuromatch.social
0 likes, 1 repeats
@cwebber agreed about who would benefit from this.* I'd also add data broker companies (who are big players in age verification), and law enforcement/intelligence agencies/authoritarians (both because of the surveillance aspects and because the logical next step after age verificaiton is to ban VPNs). So it'd certainly be interesting to follow the money. That said the bipartisan support for this isn't coming out of nowhere, it's been building over multiple years. And at least here in Washington state (where we managed to stop three different age verification bills this last session, incuding one that our Democratic Attorney General Nick Brown was pushing very heavily) I don't think the enthusiasm comes primarily from check-writing.Legislators are under a huge amount of pressure to do something to protect kids and teens online. A Pew Research survey a couple of years ago reported that nearly half of teens online have been bullied or harassed -- and that most teens don't think tech companies or the government are doing enough about it. Meta is clearly knowingly exploiting teens and hasn't been held accountable under existing law. Testimony at hearings from parents whose kids have committed suicide -- and survivors who have been groomed and exploited -- is searing.So legislators feel like they need to do something. But what? Advocates for age verification are very good at convincing people that it will help -- and at minimizing the harms that it will cause. After all, it's just like checking an ID at a liquor store!!!! And the results from the Online Safety Act in the UK and Australia's social media ban are great, none of the harms have the nay-sayers claimed have happened!!!!! Of course neither of those are true, but it's hard for legislators (or parents for that matter) who don't deeply understand the technology to understand that.**And the most obvious harms are to LGBTQIAS+ teens, which most legislators don't particularly (a) relate to emotionally, (b) understand intellctually, or (c) care about. Of course those aren't the only harms; as 90 organizations dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, rights for youth, privacy, and freedom of speech say"For vulnerable communities, a biometric scan or an ID upload can serve as a huge obstacle, especially for low-income, unhoused, and undocumented people who already have to navigate an increasingly digital world, with less access to tech tools."And there are also significant accessibility concerns. But guess what, most legislators don't particularly (a) relate to emotionally, (b) understand intellectually, or (c) care about harms to low-income, unhoused, undocumented, or disabled people either.**Also, big tech is very unpopular these days, and advocates for age verification have done a good job of convincing legislators that this is a way of holding big tech accountable. I know, it doesn't make any sense!!!!!!! But it's certainly been successful, so that's also something that needs to be countered.How to change the dynamic? In states where LGBTQ+ groups have mobilized effectively, they've almost always been able to get Democrats to oppose age verification for "sexual material harmful to minors" (as far as I know those have only passed in red states). More general age verification bills, though, have been harder to push back on. Unsurprisingly I have some thoughts here but this post is already long enough, they'll be in the followup.Although with tech companies, it depends on what variety of age verification we're talking about. Microsoft and other big tech companies played a key role in killing an age verification bill here in 2025, and also opposed it in 2026 although it was trans- and queer-led groups who took the lead with a lot of support from progressive activists. On the other hand that wasn't an OS-level age verification bill so Microsoft's incentives were different.** I and others cited EFF's Why Isn’t Online Age Verification Just Like Showing Your ID In Person? in our testimony and shared it with many legislators, several privacy-friendly Democrats and it didn't change any of their minds. And I couldn't find any reporting of the downsides of the Online Safety Act or Australia's social media ban that would resonate -- anecdotal examples are too easy to explain away as one-offs.*** We also quoted and cited this in testimony and shared it with legislators and it also didn't change any minds.
(DIR) Post #B5Mxvj46IQmmS3Gf8y by jdp23@neuromatch.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Like I said in the previous post, here in Washington state we succeeded in stopping multiple age verification bills this session -- including one supported by the Democratic AG and Democratic House and Senate leadership. Basically we succeeded by convincing a handful of progressive pro-LGBTQIA2S+ legislators that it was a bad ideaworking with them to convince enough Democratic legislators that the political cost of trying to pass something was too hightaking advantage of the political dynamics where the Republicans opposed the AG's bill because they hate the AG and didn't want to give him a political success.There are challenges in replicating that other states, and it's even harder in Congress, but it's still worth looking at what worked -- and how we can build on it.Trans- and queer-led organizations took the lead, and a lot of trans and queer grassroots activists contacted legislators as wellAn intersectional network of organizers and grassroots activists (including people from a lot of immigrant-led organizations) got very involved.Indivisibles were also very active (primarily because of the LGBTQ+ aspects)It's worth highlighting that we did this without a lot of support from well-known organizations. EFF and Fight for the Future were certainly helpful sharing perspectives, and ACLU of Washington opposed the bill, but none of them sent out any action alerts or testified in any hearings on the AG's bill. Instead it was Gender Justice League, Lavender Rights Project, and WA People's Privacy -- and a lot of grassroots activists -- who did the heavy lifting.As we've seen with KOSA and Elizabeth Warren et al, focusing on the LGBTQIA2S+ aspects isn't enough to persuade even progressive Democrats. So bringing in the immigrant-related aspects and progressive activist organizations (who have a lot of influence with many Democrats these days) is key. It's not obvious how to scale that nationally. The organizations like Fight for the Future who are attuned to this kind of strategy have a lot of other stuff on their plate (and so little funding), so while they do good work we need to complement them. EFF has more resources but isn't great at advocacy -- even on their home turf in California.One thing that hasn't been tried yet is an intersectional, multi-platform social media campaign with a focus on education as well as advocacy. There are at least two different aspects where education is neededthe harms of age verificationhow age verification benefits big tech and the surveillance-industrial complexfor kids, teens, parents, educators, and other adults about how to be safer online today.There's a lot to be said for a social media strategy here because the impact falls directly on social media users. And there's certainly a lot of interest, not just here on fedi but also Bluesky, Reddit, and TikTok (which is a hotbed of anti-KOSA acrtivism).As to just how to make that happen ... unsurprisingly I have some thoughts. But before I go there ... what do people think about general idea of an education-focused multi-platform social media campaign focused on age verification?@cwebber#AgeVerification
(DIR) Post #B5NDFa7WlEWpoWnS6a by glyph@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @Andres4NY @baconandcoconut “Parents Decide Act”. like they are cartoon authoritarians
(DIR) Post #B5NDFaqu2WpC5G1gpc by glyph@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @Andres4NY @baconandcoconut oh my god it was introduced by Gottheimer. just eject him from the party already
(DIR) Post #B5jebErfRT2OV832Yq by mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber @Andres4NY they’ll retract it once their washing machines, air conditioners, coffee machines, etc. require age verification…
(DIR) Post #B8E6xbqcVyxMkST1ai by icedquinn@blob.cat
0 likes, 0 repeats
@divVerent @cwebber > This bill establishes age-verification requirements for providers of operating systems, which includes software that supports the basic functions of a computer, mobile device, or other general purpose computing device.> First, operating system providers must require users to provide their date of birth to set up an account on, and use, the operating system. If the user is under 18 years old, the operating system must require a parent or legal guardian to verify the user's date of birth.> Additionally, operating system providers must develop a system to allow app developers to access information necessary to verify the date of birth of a user of the developer's app.without the actual text of the bill this could end up just being the nothing burger that california passed. which is basically the equivalent of "you have to add an api somewhere that says is_adult() -> bool somewhere." people set their hair on fire about that even though its most of the other states that were doing the peter thiel minioning.this is actually what some of the adult counter-lobby even suggested--just putting in an API to check if the child lock has been enabled and using that. plenty of them have been self reporting to netnanny et all for decades and just nobody bothers to fucking turn the child mode on anything (which i personally read as evidence that this isn't genuinely an issue that even needed a bill, but c'est la vis.)