[eleventyseven]

Headline is wrong, and you didn't read the article. There is no verification requirement. You are a bad HN poster and should feel bad.

All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot. You can lie, just like porn sites today. I thought HNers wanted parents to govern their children's use of technology with these kinds of mechanisms.

> There's an obvious theme with lawmakers in California—they pass laws to regulate things they have zero clue about, add them to their achievement page, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've made the world a better place."

There's an obvious theme with HN posters about politics—they make cheap drive-by comments about regulations they have zero clue about, based on articles they haven't actually read, cheer for themselves, and declare, "There! I've shown why I'm smarter than all these politics people."

[gatlin]

> All this does is require the user to select a non-verified age bracket on first boot.

This is the age verification requirement which you rudely and incorrectly said doesn't exist. Nothing is done with the data (for now) but age is in fact verified on the assumption that the user doesn't lie.

Instead of lengthy condescending missives about the behavior of other users, you should instead write "I'm sorry for being negative and bringing down the quality of discussion."

[wredcoll]

Selecting an age choice from a drop down is in no way verification.

The original post was low effort flame baiting. There's an argument to be made that it should be ignored, but it's hard to say.

[eleventyseven]

Gatlin, you need to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of "verification". This is truly embarrassing for you. It really brings down the quality of the discussion.