CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@bernardlyons @chillybot I think the suffering Irishman.

@chillybot another favorite of mine.

@david_chisnall even setting aside the (il)legitimacy of age-gating the Internet, its vastly more problematic than that, for reasons I find obvious from the text of the law:

- who is an OS developer?
- if I contribute a package to Fedora or Debian or Alpine, am I an OS developer?
- which developers are liable if Fedora does not include an age field?
- am I liable if I contribute a package to a distribution that does not include an age field?
- what if I create a customized live image and share it with my friends? Am I an OS developer?
- what is a covered application store?
- is dnf or apt a covered application store?
- is the remote dnf or apt or apk repository a covered application store?
- is dnf supposed to use root’s age, the admin user’s, or the user who invoked sudo?
- is everyone who provides apt repos now responsible to do something with an age gate?
- is github a covered application store?
- is ubi/aqua/mise? Are they responsible for locally routing this age information, or for providing it to github when they download release binaries?

It’s a law that was clearly written with no understanding of software distribution outside of Apple / Google / Microsoft / Steam, with extremely broad definitions of who may be liable.

In addition to advancing a fundamentally censorious view of internet safety.