Your future is most likely on a BSD.
Or,
Your future is to surrender. Many of you will simply surrender.
BSD?
Can’t I just put some electrical tape over the flashing clock?
Or use a VPN?
Can voter registration learn from this? When Youth 16, 17 get drivers licenses they are automatically registered to vote. Mostly they don’t actually vote. But vote harvesters vote on their behalf.
Your future is most likely on a BSD.
******************
OK, already there. FreeBSD since 3.3, approx 2000.
No going back for me (snicker).
All operating systems should do the same to all the states that have the unenforceable age verification ,LOL
Microsoft is just as bad trying to make everyone use the Spyware Microsoft account .LOL
According to Grok:
The relevant law is **Assembly Bill 1043** (the Digital Age Assurance Act), signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2025. It takes effect on January 1, 2027.
Here’s what the law actually requires, based on its text and reliable reports:
- **Operating system providers** (e.g., those for Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, Linux distributions if distributed/sold in California, etc.) must provide an **accessible interface during account setup** that prompts the account holder to indicate the **birth date, age, or both** of the device’s primary user.
- This is **self-reported** information (no mandatory ID checks, scans, or strong verification required—the OS doesn’t have to confirm accuracy).
- The OS then provides a **digital “signal”** (age bracket: under 13, 13–under 16, 16–under 18, or 18+) via an API to **app developers** (upon request) when apps are downloaded/launched from covered app stores.
- The purpose is to help apps comply with age-appropriate rules, reduce risks to minors online, and shift age signals to the device level (instead of every app/site doing its own checks).
- It applies to general-purpose computing devices and focuses on apps in covered stores.
- It does **not** require anything “in their kernel.” This is handled at the user/account setup level (UI/prompt), not deep in the kernel.
- It is **not** a question “on the age of the person in front of the keyboard” in an ongoing or pervasive way—it’s a one-time prompt during account/device setup (with some provisions for existing accounts by mid-2027).
- Phones (iOS/Android) will likely need to comply if sold/used in California, as major providers fall under the definition.
- There is **no connection to ESG** (Environmental, Social, and Governance). The law is about children’s online safety and privacy (age signals for app compliance), not ESG frameworks, corporate sustainability, or anything related to environmental/social governance metrics.
Recent discussions (including in tech communities like Hacker News, Reddit, and outlets like PC Gamer/Lunduke Journal) about the bill’s broad scope—including Linux and open-source OSes—confirm it’s self-reported age at setup for app signals, not kernel-level mandates or ESG enforcement.
In short: It’s a law about device-level age prompts for better minor protections in apps, but some claims exaggerate it into something far more invasive and misattribute its purpose.
***
So when doing the initial installation and set-up, the user could enter anything, say, April 15, 1913 as a birth date. Matter closed.
A new California law, Assembly Bill 1043 (signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in late 2025 and effective January 1, 2027), requires operating system providers to implement an age-related feature during account/device setup.
Specifically, it mandates prompting the account holder (typically an adult or parent/guardian) to input the primary user's birth date or age.
The OS must then provide a real-time API that shares an "age bracket" signal (e.g., under 13, 13-15, 16-17, 18+) with app developers upon request, primarily for apps in covered application stores.
This aims to help enforce age-based protections for minors without requiring invasive verification like ID scans or facial recognition in the base law—it's more of a self-reported age signal system.
The law applies broadly to OS providers (including those for general-purpose computing devices), with potential fines of up to $7,500 per non-compliant instance (i.e., per affected user in California), making compliance extremely burdensome or impossible for small/hobbyist/open-source projects like niche BSD variants, Linux distros, FreeDOS, Haiku, or even embedded systems.
In response:
I'm not certain it's "surrender" if one finds they agree with the law (I'm a little on the fence). I can imagine this being met with digital certificate tech. I've long thought that the US Post Offices would be ideal for issuing digital certs to US citizens.
This would really be the end of anonymity on the Internet, which is what I'm straddling the fence on. There would be plusses and minuses. I believe one of the plusses would be that peoples' identities could be attached to their messages. Another might be the end of spam email (the certificates of span senders could be revoked). Suddenly most leftists would give a second and third thought to making use of Internet messaging services for nefarious activities. The certificate might be associated with the user's login id, and sent transparently when attempting to access various services.