Parents should parent their children, not websites, not operating systems, and not idiot politicians writing idiot age verification laws
-
Parents should parent their children, not websites, not operating systems, and not idiot politicians writing idiot age verification laws
-
Parents should parent their children, not websites, not operating systems, and not idiot politicians writing idiot age verification laws
@soller also, I think if we start calling it what it is: a government identity verification, maybe people will start paying a little more attention.
-
Parents should parent their children, not websites, not operating systems, and not idiot politicians writing idiot age verification laws
@soller bold assumption that the politicians even bothered reading the law that Project 2025 handed them
-
Parents should parent their children, not websites, not operating systems, and not idiot politicians writing idiot age verification laws
@soller arguably, there should be an HTTP standard where the client can send its age-restriction preferences, and the server can send the age restriction of its contents.
Or, since age restriction differs culturally, a semantic description of content type may be more useful. Such as "3-1 implied sexuality; 1-5 graphic violence".
Even as an adult that would be nice, because it reduces the "child walks in issue", and I don't want to see certain content either.
-
@soller arguably, there should be an HTTP standard where the client can send its age-restriction preferences, and the server can send the age restriction of its contents.
Or, since age restriction differs culturally, a semantic description of content type may be more useful. Such as "3-1 implied sexuality; 1-5 graphic violence".
Even as an adult that would be nice, because it reduces the "child walks in issue", and I don't want to see certain content either.
@soller but all this should be voluntary and for the client to decide.
If the client sends a certain content restriction, then the server may opt to avoid sending such content. On the other hand, if the server sends a certain content type, the client can opt to not show it.
It should be illegal to send a wrong content type though. That is, if you don't want to care about the content types of your website, then just don't annotate, but don't claim that it's suitable for all audiences.
-
@soller but all this should be voluntary and for the client to decide.
If the client sends a certain content restriction, then the server may opt to avoid sending such content. On the other hand, if the server sends a certain content type, the client can opt to not show it.
It should be illegal to send a wrong content type though. That is, if you don't want to care about the content types of your website, then just don't annotate, but don't claim that it's suitable for all audiences.
@ISibboI @soller Maybe there's issues to this I haven't thought of, but I'd probably be ok with a client-side parental mode for devices like android phones and windows pcs. make it respond to response headers in websites or something. every child has a guardian, make it their responsibility to buy a supporting device and configure it. don't push the burden off of guardians and onto every other adult.
-
Parents should parent their children, not websites, not operating systems, and not idiot politicians writing idiot age verification laws
-
@ISibboI @soller Maybe there's issues to this I haven't thought of, but I'd probably be ok with a client-side parental mode for devices like android phones and windows pcs. make it respond to response headers in websites or something. every child has a guardian, make it their responsibility to buy a supporting device and configure it. don't push the burden off of guardians and onto every other adult.
@developing_agent @ISibboI @soller
I'd like the no-tracking, no-ads codes to go along with no-sex and no-violence. And no-religion while we're at it.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
