As of today, about half of all U.S. states have some form of age verification law around. Nine of those were passed in 2025 alone, covering everything from adult content sites to social media platforms to app stores.

Right now, California's Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) is all the rage right now, which targets not only websites and apps but also operating systems. Come January 1, 2027, every OS provider must collect a user's age at account setup and provide that data to app developers via a real-time API.

Colorado is also working on a near-identical bill, which we covered earlier.

The EFF's year-end review put it more bluntly: 2025 was "the year states chose surveillance over safety." The foundation's concern, which I concur with, is, where does this stop? Self-reported birthday today, government ID tomorrow? There appears to be no limit to these laws' overreach.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 120 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

Let's be absolutely clear here: The explosion of people being comfortable coming out as some stripe of LGBTQ+ has everything to do with an open internet where youth were not restricted from finding out about information related to how they felt inside. Instead of being made to feel like strangers in their own skin, with a world telling them that people like them didn't or shouldn't exist, they instead found community and self-love through internet forums and information which allowed them to pursue full, healthy lives as adults.

This "protect the children" malarkey is one more way for the religious groups who oppose LGBTQ+ culture to "protect the children" by restricting access to this kind of information, reducing their ability to find it in their formative years, in the name of protecting them while actually stunting their personal growth.

It extends beyond sexuality as well, although that is the most obvious since many religions are deeply censorious regarding sex.

It also affects subjects like atheism, as the various religious cultures generally do not want people contemplating the idea that there isn't a god, especially not while they're young, they want you long indoctrinated into belief before you can explore different ideas.

Further, when I was a kid in the 80s and 90s, everything I knew about drugs was literally old wives tales meant to scare kids away from drugs, and then the internet came around and suddenly there was a boom of actual, verifiable scientific information about drugs so if you wanted to experiment with drugs, you knew what you were getting into. I once had a conversation with a girlfriend who was a bit older than me about her experiences with LSD as a teen, and she admitted that at the time she really didn't understand on any scientific level what was happening or what the nature of hallucination was, she just knew she was having fun and seeing crazy shit.

This is a backdoor to restricting access to important information that youth need to have access to for making healthy decisions for themselves sexually, religiously, and in terms of what substances they put in their bodies.

The birth of the internet gave us a beautiful period where people could grow up with access to accurate, verifiable, worthwhile information that helped them navigate and understand the world they were growing up in and who they were within that world.

This kind of legislation intends to snuff out that openness and accessibility which led to increased openness and acceptance of LGBTQ+, atheism, and safe drug use (including the understanding that some illegal drugs like marijuana and LSD are probably safer than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco).

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago

    Also, neurodiversity, mental illness, and basic mental health care. People are discovering they are autistic, ADHDers, etc. They're learning how to prevent depression or how to apply DBT tools (e.g., for emotional regulation, for judging less). It's amazing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It also affects subjects like atheism, as the various religious cultures generally do not want people contemplating the idea that there isn't a god, especially not while they're young, they want you long indoctrinated into belief before you can explore different ideas.

    This reminds me of a Pakistani person I don't personally know, but someone I know talks to them.

    In their hometown, people recite verses from the Quran as part of their religious activities. There's only one problem: the Quran they use is written in Arabic, but everyone there speaks Urdu. People don't actually know what the passages say, just how to say them.

    So this person asked them once what the passages say. Why do we read the passages in Arabic instead of Urdu? People here don't know Arabic.

    Anyway, he got belted shortly after that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 87 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    In my youth I was taught that democracy meant that the government served the people.

    What do any of these laws have to do with serving the people? Do they have anything to do with the will of the people?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Billionaires are people.

    They have the will to fuck everything that moves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Billionaires certainly are people, but these laws don't even serve billionaires in any meaningful sense, so that's hardly an explanation without more elaboration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Well, the billionaires that own age verification and surveillance services have gone from trying their best to stalk to world through tracking and analytics, despite pesky privacy laws, to forcing giant swaths of populations to hand over data by compulsion.

    Yeah, they're making a mint off us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    OK, that's about the elaboration I was looking for...

    Somehow I don't think this is the central reason. I think governments are perfectly capable of doing bad things completely without billionaires having an interest in it. It especially doesn't explain things like the California law that will regulate how we can or cannot program operating systems (hint: software code is a form of speech, meaning that this ought to be struck down as a violation of free speech), because no age verification services are involved in that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    I am Californian and that one snuck past me. I really didn't hear anything about it until recently and I'm pretty pissed.

    You can't put the genie back into the lamp on biometrics. We needed real control over outlr digital data and biometrics before this became law. I hope it is repealed somehow, but the elite class don't give a fuck.

    As for business vs government, government is scrutinized closer but businesses get away with much more. It's easier to get around red tape to outsource work to businesses than build government infrastructure to do things themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's serving the will of prudes, religious fruitcakes, inattentive parents, the technologically illiterate, and anyone dumb enough to be taken in by the "think of the children!" Rhetoric of the control-freaks.

    Unfortunately this is a rather large constituency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 52 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Age Verification Laws

    The most misleading title ever. They are surveillance laws

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    No, they are censorship laws aimed at preventing young people from accessing certain types of information that specific groups don't want young people learning about, such as their sexuality, concepts like atheism, and safety information regarding drugs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    No. History taught me one thing only: if they say they want to protect kids, it's never about the kids. It's a slogan that helps to sell unpopular laws

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Presumably even if Linux must provide a means of reporting an age, you can always modify that distro to always report the oldest age?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The thing about doing age verification at the OS level is the user could just install a crack that rewrites the necessary code. It'll take some heavy DRM type stuff to block that. Possibly hardware support, like a specialised TPM.

    No way can that be standardised and then rolled out quickly. If they rush it then it'll be some proprietary power grab.

    The alternative is each website and app does it separately which will be spotty and provide endless security breaches.

    It'll be a shitshow either way.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    The thing is, this shouldn't really be a problem.

    I am still against where all this age verification crap is coming from, and I'm against what specifically "age verification" entails; but here's the thing: We keep saying, "It should be the parent's responsibility to secure their kids"—and while that's true, you can do all the talking and educating you want, but the fact is that the internet is now nigh-fully integrated with our lives, and unless you are surveilling your kid at every moment they are on the internet (don't recommend), not every parent has the time, resources, or know-how to keep their children safe on the internet without help.

    So to play naive for a moment and ignore the well-understood reality that "child safety" is an atom-thick veil for mass surveillance: Why did we give up so fast on device parental controls? The info being stored on the OS / user settings actually isn't so bad of an idea if the implementation valued both safety and privacy. Upon setting up the device or account, it is the parent's responsibility to create a password or biometric or whatever to activate/deactivate the safety mode. No personal information required. It should be pretty easy. Are there technically ways for the kid to get around this? Yes, but that'd be breaking the trust. In the same way you'd deal with your kid sneaking out of the house, you deal with that separately. The existence of websites that don't perform the check is inevitable no matter what you do.

    And if you don't believe your kid needs a safety lock on the internet, then that's your prerogative.

    It's apparent that many parents need a more convenient tool available to them, but privacy doesn't need to be compromised in order to achieve a safer internet. I got lazy while writing this, and I'm sure that's clear in some spots, but I'm just gonna post it. There's possibly something huge that I'm overlooking, so I'll just let someone else point it out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    You're not overlooking anything. You hit the nail on the head, these laws are about surveillance and censorship and that's why they're being implemented in the worst and least privacy respecting way possible. The next step is to make sure it's impossible to circumvent by enforcing locked bootloaders and secure boot. Phones are 90% of the way there already and it probably wouldn't be too hard for them to fuck up the desktop/laptop side of things either.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    My Linux is not ever going to have any age verification.

    I'm not living in those backwards contry and if that push ever comes to shove, there will always be way around it. It's the beauty of open source, no entity is liable to comply. And we're in the brink of ad-hoc internet which would render that stupid centralized and overgoverned shit to zero.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    Told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you so told you-

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Your Linux distro may be next. I use Arch by the way.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Bet Microsoft is behind this.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The most practical solution is probably to "not sell Linux in California anymore". I guess distributions could geofence the iso download page for plausible deniability and then that's that, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Who the hell is "selling" Linux?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    The offical linux shop, obviously -- though your local PC sales/repair shop can probably order you a copy. I understand that Linyos Torovoltos grew up under communism and originally couldn't legally sell Lunix, but the Soviets lost the cold war decades ago.

    I'd rather spend a few bucks for a legitimate copy than risk installing some virus infested illegal version off some sketchy website.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    this is the pipeline to fully trusted restricted computing.

    Linux couldn't possibly comply properly with these new restrictions? Consumer grade prebuilts and laptops now only run "certified" operating systems, just like most mobile devices.

    Surveillance and censorship are the ends, "age" (identity) verification is the means.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Wait, so instead of me telling every website I'm 90, I'll tell my OS I'm 90 and the sites will query that, and this somehow works better? I'm not 90 btw, so all I'm doing is just changing who I'm lying to from zyn.com to Fedora? Great plan.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    They know people will do this. It's only stage 1. After this system is integrated, they will complain that people are misusing the feature and it needs to be upgraded to ID or biometrics. Boiling the frog.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    The problem with Linux for the government is that it has a unique ability for being easily modified by users. You sure can force some very popular distros to follow these laws but you cannot force less popular distros made by enthusiasts to comply. Especially if those enthusiasts live not in your country.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    That security guard has a tiny head.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Time to get a permanently offline machine.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    One should be able to skip it when creating an account and then it should default to Jan 1st 1970 on all open source OS's to provide anonymity.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    The very day I hear that my os is asking people their age is the day I find a different one.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›