California's Digital Age Assurance Act, and FOSS

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and Definitions

  • Many see the law’s core concepts (“covered application store”, “operating system”, “general purpose computing device”) as overbroad or unclear.
  • Debate over whether package managers (apt, yum, Homebrew), repositories (Flathub, PyPI, GitHub), DNS, torrent trackers, cloud services, routers, and embedded systems could be deemed “app stores.”
  • Some argue the statutory “distributes AND facilitates download” language narrows scope; others think a creative prosecutor could still stretch it.

Impact on FOSS and OS Vendors

  • Concern that FOSS OSes and tools would be forced to implement age signals, even for volunteer-run projects with no commercial backing.
  • People worry about massive potential fines changing the risk calculus for hobby and noncommercial contributors, especially those publishing containers or images.
  • Some claim the law is effectively designed for major consumer OSes (iOS, Android, Windows, macOS), with FOSS caught as collateral.
  • Suggestions range from adding simple age fields to accounts to extreme responses like “not for use in California” labels or geoblocking the U.S.

Enforcement, Liability, and Vagueness

  • Clarified that only the state attorney general can bring civil actions, with fines tied to the number of affected children.
  • Disagreement on how “affected child” and “actual knowledge” work: some read the law as allowing developers to rely on OS signals; others think the language could misattribute knowledge or invite abuse.
  • Fears that vague wording enables future expansion or prosecutorial overreach.

Privacy, Anonymity, and Slippery Slope

  • Some view this OS-level age flag as the least invasive alternative to ID checks and third‑party verification.
  • Others see it as a first step toward universal age/ID verification, loss of anonymity, and greater platform and state control.

Parenting, Public Health, and Effectiveness

  • Split between those who insist responsibility should remain with parents (using existing tools and network controls) and those who argue most parents lack the technical capacity, framing it as a public‑health problem.
  • Many doubt technical feasibility: kids are highly motivated to bypass controls; any system will resemble ineffective “Are you 18?” dialogs.

Legislative Process and Politics

  • Some call the law “performative” or a product of lobbying and regulatory capture; others see it as an earnest but technically naive attempt to centralize age signaling.
  • Frustration that the FOSS community did not engage earlier in the legislative process.