I feel like all of these laws are being designed backwards. Content providers, like MPAA films, should have to identify what sort of content they are providing. Then I can give my kids a device configured to allow some or all of that at my discretion.
Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.
On the contrary in my experience once a legislature passes a bill to "fix" a particular problem they consider it fixed and don't update it for at least 20 years.
it depends on whether or not there's someone who sees it as a crusade (rare), sees it as a way to get political clout (very common) and/or is getting a lot of lobbying money (also very common). see, for eg, the anti-trans bills that are being passed
this is the same rhetorical and political strategy, that there are 'dangerous' people who will exploit your children so please vote for me, the person who cares the most about children and will go after the 'dangerous' people
The slope is only slippery if the change in question makes it easier for future changes to be bad. Otherwise you're only arguing for no changes to ever be made. Does this law make forced verification easier than if this law didn't exist?
Seems so - it builds in the verification infrastructure requirement, making it dead simple to change whether it is opt in or opt out at any time.
It's actually pretty hard not to have a change be part of a slippery slope. It requires including blocks for further behavior as any subset implementation is hard to sell as not being a slippery slope path otherwise.
Potentially. The existence of the law exemplifies the idea the law is there to protect someone; all you need then to upgrade it is to argue that the current method is insufficient protection. Spirit of the law has been established - letter of the law will follow.
These laws still do not sit well with me. This is just going to create endless lawsuits. In my opinion the safer choice would be to avoid doing anything with current teens, that's just a non starter. Instead think of sliding windows of time and sandbox small children on a child account that if all goes well will one day be a teen and then an adult. They will thank you when they are an adult for looking out for them when they were too young to consent to the data leaked by these laws.
- For small children set an RTA header (previous discussions) [1] for any URL that may potentially contain content not appropriate for small children.
- Require app and device vendors to create a properly sand-boxed child account. Pen test it but it does not have to be perfect. This is for small children and default installed applications. If the child visits a URL that contains the RTA header then trigger parental controls. It is entirely up to the parent when that child is ready for mature content. How is this enforced? Same way as any other parenting issue. If there is an incident that involves law enforcement, then social services can investigate and determine if negligence was occurring. When the child is mentally mature enough to deal with all the crap that is the internet their account is converted to an adult account.
> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?
Phrases can have meanings beyond just a naive combination of the words in them. And indeed "algorithmic feed" in the bill means what what we all understand that term to mean when we aren't paralyzed by pedantry.
> Under the law, [...] these users will only be shown content they request or search for or that is posted by a creator or friend they follow.
You may disagree with the motivation behind the bill, but you do the discussion a disservice to assume the people writing it are incompetent enough to not define their terms.
> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm.
You could argue about the language and the meaning of "algorithm", but for practical purposes I'd consider a manually-curated feed to be non-algorithmic.
Companies like Red Hat/IBM operate in Illinois and for better or worse have controlling interests in Linux and across open source projects pretty broadly. Wouldn't they be forced to include the capability in their products, which then percolate out to everyone just by network effects?
> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?
That's a paraphrasing of what law says. The law is more clearly defined:
> "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online
application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in
which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of
a website, online service, online application, or mobile
application, either concurrently or sequentially, are
recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user
based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the
user or the user's device, unless any of the following
conditions are met:
(1) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection
is based on information that is not persistently
associated with the user's device and does not concern the
user's previous interactions with media generated or
shared by other users;
(2) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection
is based on data controlled by user-selected privacy or
accessibility settings or technical information concerning
the user's device;
(3) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the
specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of
media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users
to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided
that the media is not recommended, selected, or
prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on
other information that is not permissible under this
definition;
(4) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the
specific media by a specific author, creator, or poster of
media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users
to a page or group the user has subscribed to as described
by paragraph (3), be blocked, prioritized, or
deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not
recommended, selected, or prioritized based, in whole or
in part, on other information associated with the user or
the user's device that is not permissible under this
definition;
(5) the media is direct and private communication
between users;
(6) the media is recommended, selected, or prioritized
only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user;
(7) the media that is recommended, selected, or
prioritized for display is exclusively next in a
preexisting sequence from the same author, creator,
poster, or source; or
(8) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection
is necessary to comply with the provisions of this Act.
"Addictive social media platform" means a covered platform
that offers users or provides users with an addictive feed as a
part of the service provided by that website, online service,
online application, or mobile application.
They want an explanation of what an algorithm is. The world is full of people using words they don't understand and sometimes of them work in legislatures.
The relevant text doesn't call it an "algorithmic feed" for what it's worth. They define an "addictive" feed and it's essentially any kind of personalized recommendation.
> "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met.
That part hasn't really been decided since it's a regulatory question.
Basically the bill defines
> "Operating system provider" means a commercial or non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's operating system, including the design, programming, or supply of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices.
Which is an extremely broad definition that could be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways.
So in red states porn is being used, and in blue states TikTok and Instagram are being used. Is anyone tracking who is behind the concerted efforts here? For example, which organizations, executives, lobbyists and politicians are valid and responsible parties?
Meta is one of the biggest ones pushing for this, because they don't want to be accountable so these types of laws pass the buck onto the delivery platforms (Apple, Google, other OSes)
Meta is then funding/lobbying alongside a bunch of other conservative groups like Heritage Action, and the digital childhood alliance (also made up of a ton of other conservative lobbying groups)
Their website (now offline) also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is under "surveillance" because it got a few thousand requests from Google Cloud et al, most of them to a single page. This shows how low their standards are.
You raise an interesting point in the first sentence. It might be that age sniffing could actually violate the US constitution.
As for lobbyists: I think we can probably determine the key lobbyists, e. g. if we map the data and names. And ideally also the money given to them. Ultimately they are faceless though, because corruption is easily exchangeable. The issue here is systemic though. The US "democracy" no longer exists due to that corruption. It is not rule by the people but rule by bribery.
I used to run a parental controls startup and after talking to lots of parents, I can tell you this sentiment is shared among most parents. Parents on both sides of the isle think they're going to keep their teenagers off the internet forever, I had parents look me straight in the face and say their child wouldn't be allowed online until she was 16.
Parents aren't interested in the nuance of good and bad guys, they see the internet, think it's too much trouble to keep around, and want it blocked. I suspect politicians are just mimicking this sentiment after talking to thousands of parents
Does it even ask for verification? If not, the problem with it is that it seems to require the OS provider (not the local installation) to store the age.
> "Nothing in the bill requires a passport scan or a face scan at setup. It’s self-declared, the same way most apps ask your birthday today, just centralized once at the OS level instead of repeated app by app."
Legislating that all complex computing devices must give out your birthday (technically a "signal" of which bucket you're in, but sites are absolutely going to keep track of which bucket you where in, keep asking, and see when it changes).
It's constitutional case law that there's an implicit right to privacy in the constitution. I don't see a law that you must wear a band with your birthday out in public passing muster based on that. I don't see why existing in cyberspace changes the inherent privacy question, and in fact makes it more meaningful given ease of automation.
However, unlike GNU plus Linux plus systemd plus FreeDesktop.org, it does not constitute a usable Operating System for a Desktop computer per se. Merely having a notion of userland isn't sufficient! Is age verification to be placed within the coreutils? I think not! Hyperfocusing on putting the API in systemd should be sufficient....
Pay no heed to anyone saying anything different, regulators!
So presumably the next step is they move their servers out of the US and then DA's target the Linux Foundation directly (e.g., coerce the kernel to take a change by some Meta engineers that "attests" a device when said option is compiled in, then force it as default on.. so in Debian you'd get an "Illinois"-kernel variant).
At which point the only move is to relocate the foundation to another country, which will then of course be hit by tariffs and sanctions.
Unpopular opinion, but this is objectively better than having to upload your ID to every random website that requires an age check (if that's what the end result is).
Instead of the client sending the user's age to the server, why not make the server send a minimum age to the client? The client is welcome to block content without disclosing personal information to the server. This is as secure as sending an unverified age to the servet.
In the sense that a website could just ask your OS if you are over a certain age and that age was self declared? That seems fine to me, but why can't the websites just ask me for my self declared age?
That's how things used to be and that makes more sense in my opinion because an OS isn't the thing displaying content. It just run whatever it is told to run.
I predicted this would happen. Others also predicted this would happen.
I think now even the last person realises that this has nothing to do with age "verification". They simply hate us for our freedom. And it is clearly a move coordinated by private business here; their lobbyists are acting. This is also why it is the same law essentially in so many different countries at the same time. It is quite fascinating to watch, actually. People used to say "conspiracy nut!" - well, the facts are too clear now. That's no longer a conspiracy.
You have to show ID to get voter registration in IL, regardless if you do it ahead of time or at the polls, it's just that the ID is not federal. The same situation (no federal ID needed, just proof of a portion of identity) is found with this and I really don't see either of those being measurably better/worse with a national ID.
Not that I would mind a national ID. It's a real annoyance moving between states & I'd love to say "sorry state xyz, I'm already registered nationally and don't need a regional ID" when I move.
Requiring my kids' devices to advertise their age (or their age "bucket", as if that was a meaningful difference) to protect them is not doing me or my kids any favors.
Self-declaration means that the system asks the user to declare if they are a minor. Nothing is verified.
Age verification typically means a system which checks ID or has other enforcement measures to try to verify age.
Makes no sense to treat it like some unwelcome argument
this is the same rhetorical and political strategy, that there are 'dangerous' people who will exploit your children so please vote for me, the person who cares the most about children and will go after the 'dangerous' people
You seem to assume that "this is now final, nothing will change after that". Why would you assume this to be the case?
It's actually pretty hard not to have a change be part of a slippery slope. It requires including blocks for further behavior as any subset implementation is hard to sell as not being a slippery slope path otherwise.
- For small children set an RTA header (previous discussions) [1] for any URL that may potentially contain content not appropriate for small children.
- Require app and device vendors to create a properly sand-boxed child account. Pen test it but it does not have to be perfect. This is for small children and default installed applications. If the child visits a URL that contains the RTA header then trigger parental controls. It is entirely up to the parent when that child is ready for mature content. How is this enforced? Same way as any other parenting issue. If there is an incident that involves law enforcement, then social services can investigate and determine if negligence was occurring. When the child is mentally mature enough to deal with all the crap that is the internet their account is converted to an adult account.
[1] - https://nochan.net/b/Internet-Crap/20230829-Think-Of-The-Chi...
>no algorithmic feeds for minors by default
Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?
Phrases can have meanings beyond just a naive combination of the words in them. And indeed "algorithmic feed" in the bill means what what we all understand that term to mean when we aren't paralyzed by pedantry.
> Under the law, [...] these users will only be shown content they request or search for or that is posted by a creator or friend they follow.
You may disagree with the motivation behind the bill, but you do the discussion a disservice to assume the people writing it are incompetent enough to not define their terms.
You could argue about the language and the meaning of "algorithm", but for practical purposes I'd consider a manually-curated feed to be non-algorithmic.
however
"nothing in the bill has teeth against someone with no business presence in Illinois"
That's a paraphrasing of what law says. The law is more clearly defined:
> "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met: (1) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user's device and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users; (2) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on data controlled by user-selected privacy or accessibility settings or technical information concerning the user's device; (3) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information that is not permissible under this definition; (4) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media by a specific author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to as described by paragraph (3), be blocked, prioritized, or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not permissible under this definition; (5) the media is direct and private communication between users; (6) the media is recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user; (7) the media that is recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or (8) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this Act. "Addictive social media platform" means a covered platform that offers users or provides users with an addictive feed as a part of the service provided by that website, online service, online application, or mobile application.
The relevant text doesn't call it an "algorithmic feed" for what it's worth. They define an "addictive" feed and it's essentially any kind of personalized recommendation.
> "Addictive feed" means a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met.
Basically the bill defines
> "Operating system provider" means a commercial or non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's operating system, including the design, programming, or supply of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices.
Which is an extremely broad definition that could be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways.
Meta is then funding/lobbying alongside a bunch of other conservative groups like Heritage Action, and the digital childhood alliance (also made up of a ton of other conservative lobbying groups)
Their website (now offline) also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is under "surveillance" because it got a few thousand requests from Google Cloud et al, most of them to a single page. This shows how low their standards are.
As for lobbyists: I think we can probably determine the key lobbyists, e. g. if we map the data and names. And ideally also the money given to them. Ultimately they are faceless though, because corruption is easily exchangeable. The issue here is systemic though. The US "democracy" no longer exists due to that corruption. It is not rule by the people but rule by bribery.
Parents aren't interested in the nuance of good and bad guys, they see the internet, think it's too much trouble to keep around, and want it blocked. I suspect politicians are just mimicking this sentiment after talking to thousands of parents
> "Nothing in the bill requires a passport scan or a face scan at setup. It’s self-declared, the same way most apps ask your birthday today, just centralized once at the OS level instead of repeated app by app."
It's constitutional case law that there's an implicit right to privacy in the constitution. I don't see a law that you must wear a band with your birthday out in public passing muster based on that. I don't see why existing in cyberspace changes the inherent privacy question, and in fact makes it more meaningful given ease of automation.
Why do you think that is?
Pay no heed to anyone saying anything different, regulators!
At which point the only move is to relocate the foundation to another country, which will then of course be hit by tariffs and sanctions.
That's how things used to be and that makes more sense in my opinion because an OS isn't the thing displaying content. It just run whatever it is told to run.
You can also thank big tech for this because they'll do anything to not verify age on their platforms they want to push it onto devices and OSes.
Also how is that fine going to work if you don't have any children?
I think now even the last person realises that this has nothing to do with age "verification". They simply hate us for our freedom. And it is clearly a move coordinated by private business here; their lobbyists are acting. This is also why it is the same law essentially in so many different countries at the same time. It is quite fascinating to watch, actually. People used to say "conspiracy nut!" - well, the facts are too clear now. That's no longer a conspiracy.
Not that I would mind a national ID. It's a real annoyance moving between states & I'd love to say "sorry state xyz, I'm already registered nationally and don't need a regional ID" when I move.