Option A isn't really the status quo. The status quo has a bunch of sites doing invasive checks and other sites region blocking users.
> Only large incumbents will have no trouble paying for the measures required to ensure compliance.
Oh my gawwwwwd. People trot this out any time any regulation is mentioned. Option B is a single easily accessible age category value. It's simpler than the status quo.
> Option B is […] simpler than the status quo.
This bill FORBIDS platforms from operating in the state unless they provide age verification.
Forbid an OS for operating in Illinois? Sounds insane to me. When I bring my Linux laptop from California, what happens?
I'm not really focused on the exact wording of this bill. But mandating distros have a useradd and glibc with an extra couple functions is not a significant burden.
So... a pinky swear then, right?
I mean, how is the OS going to actually verify the age of the operator?
I see how this helps Facebook - if you lie to the OS, and the OS tells Facebook that you're over 18, then it's not Facebook's fault if they provide you an 18+ service.
I don't see how this helps anyone else.
It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.
That's the difference between a parental control and a pinky swear.
> It's set by the administrator of the computer, so a parent can set it for their child instead of hoping their child is honest to every single individual site.
You are assuming the parent is the administrator of the computer.
I am not assuming that. That's why it's a "can". Parental controls are always "can".
I have no experience with minors using Linux. Do they not typically have sudo access?