this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
-24 points (31.8% liked)
Linux
63910 readers
466 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes it is. It absolutely is. If you provide a service, you should responsible for the safety of that service, especially if you are providing and advertising that service to kids.
You are misleading yourself.
Consider a vehicle. We understand that there is a threshold of age and responsibility to operating a vehicle safely, but we don't hold the vehicle manufacturer responsible for driver error if the driver is under the age of licensing.
You are suggesting that an os maker can be held responsible for user decisions, which is both unenforceable and legally unsound.
Correct. Right now the OS maker is not responsible. That exactly why Meta is pushing so hard to change the laws to make them responsible.
Your analogy is a good analogy. In your car analogy, today, no one blames the car manufacturer for a drunk driver, but we do blame bars and bar tenders. In many states, bars have to be licensed and if the bar tender allows some one to get drunk and drive home the bar and the bar tender can be held liable. This situation would be like if bars got together to lobby state and national governments to make it so that the car manufacturers had to install breathalyzers in every car so that the bars could reduce their liability and responsibility.
I don't think you've thought this analogy through, or else you haven't had much experience with bars. Drinking establishments have a duty to "cut off" intoxication, but that ends at the door.
The us military has a history of being very interested in recruits from tweens and teens online. And obviously the us military isn't alone in this.
If what you are suggesting is true, that "it's all OK because protect the kids", it would be fairly awkward to explain this practice.
I didn't understand your disagreement. Yes just like a bar shouldn't be responsible for a person that gets plastered drunk after they leave, Facebook shouldn't be responsible for the actions of a predator that goes to a porn website to lure kids. Just like the Catholic Church shouldn't be responsible for a public school teacher that rapes her students at school. The only times any of these organizations are responsible is when the abuses happen while using their services.
I don't get why this is controversial.
I can't speak for the military's recruiting practices. Yes, I fully agree that the military's recruitment practices are very predatory, and should be reigned in. Politically, I personally think "enlistment" shouldn't be an option at all. It should be random draft. Every year the military should tell Congress how many new recuits they need, and Congress should approve a draft of 18 year olds for that many new recuits. The draft should be random, with no deferments or other ways out of service other than health reasons as determined by a military physician. (But that's way off topic.)
My disagreement with your posture is your implied insistence that protecting children is the only goal of these proposed laws. The military example should have shown you that this is obviously not the main goal of these laws, but you seem to want to ignore this.
Most ppl agree with protecting kids from mature content.
This law(s) is framed in a way to be unenforceable, yet the laws are coming regardless. This would suggest there is another reason for the laws.
Are you seeing how unworkable this proposed law is yet?
We don't prevent kids from going into hardware stores that carry dangerous tools, we assume children are accompanied by a responsible adult. This is no different.
At its core, neither an operating system nor a browser is a service. They are effectively data that the users are serving to themselves. There are certainly some operating systems and browsers that contain the ability to connect a service as a plugin or (I would say) maliciously include a connection to a service by default such as targeted advertising, but those services are neither the OS nor the browser.
Right. That's why Facebook is trying to get the laws changed so that it's the OS that is responsible.
There is a big conspiracy behind this, it's just not a shadowy-government one.
I don't know if you meant to, but you completely ignored the point. Your comment directly quoted @Dirk@lemmy.ml and edited out "OS" and "browser". You then began talking about how "services" have an obligation.
EDIT: I jumbled usernames. My bad.
Right, I was making the point that just like the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church can't just shrug off their responsibility, online orgs don't get a free pass either.
But if these laws are passed, then they will get a free pass, and just point at the OS maker as the problem. Be mad about that and I'm on your side.