[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.

[gatlin]

If it must be ignored, then it exists. The bill proposes age verification. You may think the measures employed are weak or trivial, and I would agree, but the bill proposes age verification.

[mistercheph]

Ah we should be happy about a bad law because it's enforcement mechanism is weak? That's twice-bad: undermines the strength and meaning of Law, and aligns Law with the bad.

When the law and it's execution are undermined and weak, it becomes the cudgel of fickle changing power, i.e. it is applied selectively and it means nothing to people except when they are being beat in the head with it, at which point they only regret having been caught, successfully undermining the social and political fabric of a nation.

Having a bad law with a weak enforcement mechanism isn't quite the thing to be boasting about you seem to think it is.

[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.