[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.

[wtallis]

You seem to be operating with an unreasonably weak definition of "verification". What this bill is requiring is that app stores or operating systems ask for age information. Verification would mean doing something to verify the accuracy of the information provided, not merely receiving a response to the question. "Age verification" is not a synonym for "having age-based restrictions".

[wredcoll]

The bill attempts to move age related signals from sending a scan of your passport to facebook to your own operating system attesting something.

[calf]

Why do I keep proposing things but they fail to exist and I can't ignore my failures?

[eleventyseven]

Hey gatlin, are you going to apologize for ignorantly mangling the definition of the word "verification"?

Just delete your account.

[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.