[safety1st]

My first reaction is that this is an insanely bad law:

* The signal has to be made available to both apps and websites

* So if you dutifully input valid ages for your computer users, now any groomer with a website or an app can find out who's a kid and who isn't. You just put a target on your kid's back.

* A fair share of parents will realize this, and in order to protect their children, will willfully noncomply. So now we'll have a bunch of kids surfing the net with a flag saying they're an adult and it's okay to show them adult content.

* Some apps/websites will end up relying on this signal instead of some real age verification, which means that in places like porn sites where there's a decent argument for blocking access from kids, it'll get harder. Or your kid will get random porn ads on websites or something.

So basically unless this thing is thrown out by the courts, California lawmakers have just increased the number of kids who get groomed and the number of kids who get shown porn.

Mind boggling that something this bad passed.

[nomel]

I'm not sure what the solution is, but to steel man a bit, the alternative is kids have access to all the adult spaces, where they will be groomed. A website/app serving grooming content to a kid is just so incredibly unlikely compared to a kid being groomed as the result of having unrestricted access.

Since I do not see a solution, and you see identifying children as a risk, what do you see as a solution for kids being in the same spaces as adults? Do you see a reasonable implementation to separate them, that doesn't have the "we know which accounts are children" problem? Maybe there's something in between?

Also, I think it's important to understand the life of a modern child, who's in front of a screen 7.5 hours a day on average [1], with that increasingly being social media, half having unrestricted access to the internet [2].

I hate government control/nanny state, but I think 5 year olds watching gore websites, watching other children die for fun, is probably not ok (I saw this at the dentist). People are really stupid, and many parents are really shitty. What do you do? Maybe nothing is the answer?

[1] https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...

[2] https://fosi.org/parental-controls-for-online-safety-are-und...

[anikom15]

The solution is parental liability.

[ndsipa_pomu]

As the problem is adults trying to groom kids, the answer is robust detection and enforcement of the current anti-grooming laws.

It's ironic that people supposedly care about this when there's also a child rapist/murderer being kept safe as President without being held accountable for his crimes.

I suppose this law could be used as a defense against getting caught grooming minors - "I thought they were adult as surely a kid wouldn't be able to access that chat group"

[Buttons840]

Instead, websites should voluntarily put content ratings on their own stuff--most would because either they don't intend to harm children, or from societal pressure.

Then, software on the user's computer can filter without revealing any information about the user.

[Dylan16807]

> So if you dutifully input valid ages for your computer users, now any groomer with a website or an app can find out who's a kid and who isn't. You just put a target on your kid's back.

I'm not going to say that's impossible but the number of sites that do the right thing and reduce risk are going to vastly outnumber that. And 90% of those kids already have targets on their backs by virtue of the sites they visit.

[NetMageSCW]

What risk exists from sites that are doing to do the right thing?

This smells strongly of I just made it harder for those that do the right thing and did nothing to solve any problem.