Illinois just told every operating system to start reporting your kid's age
Illinois is advancing a law that would require operating systems to support an age‑bracket setting for user accounts and expose it via a standard, encrypted signal to apps and websites, effectively mandating built‑in parental controls. Supporters see this as a relatively privacy‑preserving way to satisfy growing political demands for child online safety and to head off more intrusive ID checks, while critics argue it shifts responsibility from large platforms to parents and open‑source developers, normalizes a gated internet, and could be leveraged for censorship or surveillance. The proposal also raises practical questions about jurisdiction over global software, how Linux and BSD systems would comply, and whether companies will retreat from markets like Illinois rather than implement the feature.
Scope and Intent of the Illinois Law
- Law requires operating systems to support an age/age-bracket signal that apps and sites can query.
- Many commenters stress it’s not true “age verification”: there’s no penalty for lying, and no mandated ID checks.
- Several describe it as essentially mandating built-in parental controls or a “child-safe mode” across devices.
- One detail cited: “age-related signals” must be encrypted when transmitted, but only for this specific API.
Censorship, Control, and Slippery Slope Concerns
- Strong faction sees this as censorship and normalization of a state-gated internet.
- Fears that it shifts the Overton window toward more intrusive verification later (IDs, biometrics, surveillance).
- Some argue that age-gating is easily bypassed by determined kids, so the main effect would be control, not safety.
- Others warn about governments or platforms using age signals to justify broader content regulation or targeting.
Liability Shifting and Big Tech Incentives
- Multiple commenters believe Meta/Google/Apple support such laws to reduce legal exposure and gain standardized age signals.
- Debate over whether OS-level signaling helps them collect more data or merely offloads responsibility and blame (“the OS said this user is X age”).
- Some view it as a way for platforms to keep harmful engagement patterns while claiming compliance.
Parental Responsibility vs. Systemic Design
- One camp stresses that parents, not governments or OSS devs, should supervise kids’ device use and teach safe behavior.
- Others respond that modern platforms are engineered to be maximally addictive; non-technical parents are outmatched without systemic support.
- Several propose network/device-level “child-safe by default” modes, with simple opt-out for adults, as a better model.
Technical and Jurisdictional Issues
- Questions about how Linux/*BSD and non-US developers would or could comply; some expect device vendors to geo-restrict features or sales.
- Comparison to product safety laws: states can’t force you to write code, but can ban sale of non-compliant products.
- Some see this as the “least bad” approach compared to existing red-state laws requiring ID or facial scans for adult content.