• 0x0@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    It just feels like a way to standardise parental controls.

    Then focus on that instead of pushing age laws.
    And we all know this “Think of the children” is never about the children.
    Next will be compliance through secureboot and TPM.

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Standardization of optional parental controls (and accessibility while we’re at it) would benefit most linux distros imho.

        • Archr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Someone else had brought up in the past few days that parents either don’t know that parental controls like this exist. Or they don’t care.

          This law puts that age setting front and center and allows apps, like Discord, so say “no <13 year olds”. I think where this maybe gets tricky is if an app says “only <13 year olds”. As like people have said there is nothing stopping people from lying, and that is a two-way street.

          • 0x0@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            This law puts that age setting front and center

            No. All this law does it promote more data collection and impose more restrictions.
            They don’t care about the children and, even if they did, it’s the parents’ job to parent them.

              • socsa@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                What reason is that? What mess? I don’t give a shit what other people’s kids do on the Internet.