I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified.
Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I’m describing is exactly how it’s been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn’t need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.
I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified. Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I’m describing is exactly how it’s been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn’t need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.
And that’s precisely why I’m switching to a distro that doesn’t use systemd.