California moves to exempt Linux from its age-verification law after backlash

Overall reaction to the law

• Many think the law is fundamentally bad and should be repealed, not patched with exemptions.
• Others see it as part of a broader, popular push to restrict kids’ access to harmful online content and social media, even if implementation is messy.
• Several argue California politicians are driven more by optics (“protect the children”) and donor interests than technical reality or civil liberties.

Linux / FOSS exemption

• Amendment exempts operating systems/applications whose licenses allow copying, redistribution, and modification (commercially, royalty‑free).
• Commenters note this likely covers Linux and BSDs, but not Android in commercial form (Apache 2 + proprietary layers) or Windows/macOS.
• Some worry about edge cases: composite products, corporate Windows rights to copy/modify binaries, Tivoization, and “source vs software” wording.
• Colorado’s similar FOSS exemption is cited; some suggest tightening language to explicitly require modifiable source code and no platform locks.

Privacy, surveillance, and regulatory capture

• Strong concern that age‑gating at the OS level is a step toward deanonymizing the internet and building ID‑linked device registries.
• Many see big platforms (especially Meta) pushing OS‑level age checks to shift cost and liability away from themselves and entrench incumbents (“regulatory capture”).
• Some frame this as part of a wider anti‑VPN / pro‑surveillance trend, not genuine child protection.

Parental controls vs. age verification

• Broad agreement that controls should be client‑side and parent‑driven, not universal ID checks affecting adults with no children.
• Long sub‑thread proposes using an RTA‑style HTTP header (or richer content descriptors) plus browser/OS parental controls, with “adult by default” unless approved by parents.
• Others flag problems: mixed‑content sites (e.g., Wikipedia, social media), per‑country standards, liability incentives to over‑label as “adult”, and poor historical adoption of such schemes.

Constitutional and societal issues

• Some argue device‑level age gating and mandatory classification are compelled speech and incompatible with the First Amendment.
• Others counter that society already accepts age limits on alcohol, tobacco, porn, and physical venues; the disagreement is over means, not ends.
• There’s deep division between “no restrictions at all” advocates and those prioritizing collective action to reduce social media harms to minors.

Confusion about the actual CA law

• Several note that many comments conflate different jurisdictions’ age‑verification schemes.
• Clarifications: the California approach discussed is described as an OS‑level age bracketing / parental‑control system for child‑primary devices, not mandatory government ID checks or direct PII sharing with apps—though critics still see it as a dangerous precedent.