> It defines operating system in the law.

No, it doesn't.

It defines the following terms: "account holder", "age bracket data", "application", "child", "covered application store", "developer", "operating system provider", "signal", and "user".

> This wouldn’t apply to embedded systems and WiFi routers and traffic lights and all those things. It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles.

Presumably, this based on reading the language that in the definition of "operating system developer", and then for some reason adding in "game consoles" (the actual language in both of those includes "a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing [device".

(I've also rarely seen such a poorly-crafted set of definitions; the definitions in the law are in several places logically inconsistent with the provisions in which they are applied, and in other places circular on their own or by way of mutual reference to other terms defined in the law, such that you cannot actually identify what the definitions include without first starting with knowledge of what they include.)

" It applies to operating systems that work with associated app stores on general purpose computers or mobile phones or game consoles. That’s it"

Everything is a general purpose computer. Just look at how many things have been made to run doom. I haven't read the law specifically but if it actually does say this then that language is useless and means practically everything.

Is a repository on a linux machine an app store? Are custom repositories app stores? Does this mean that now most automated deployments are now not automated? If they can be automated, does that mean that having the automation by default makes sense?

> (Also it’s not age verification really, it’s just a prompt that asks for your age to share as a system API for apps from above app store, no verification required)

It's not enough to adhere to the age signal:

> (3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a developer shall treat a signal received pursuant to this title as the primary indicator of a user’s age range for purposes of determining the user’s age.

> (B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

Developers are still burdened with additional liability if they have reason to believe users are underage, even if their age flag says otherwise.

The only way to mitigate this liability is to confirm your users are of age with facial and ID scans, that is why age verification systems are implemented that way: doing so minimizes liability for developers/providers and it's cheap.

The language in the bill says operating system “or” application store. Isn't that then implying any operating system that would download applications, even if it doesn’t come from a store. But IANAL.

Seems to me this would include TVs, cars, smart devices, etc. The Colorado version of this bill excludes devices used for physical purchase, so your gas pumps and POS systems would be excluded in CO. But I didn’t see that in the CA bill.

They’re both overly broad, ill-considered, frankly terrible bills that make as much sense as putting your birthday into a brewery site or Steam. Enter your birthday and we trust you. Now do that for every single one of those 100 VMs you just deployed…

> per-child usage

If the First Amendement is to prevent a government from letting you speak, shouldn’t that also concert a government from letting you hear that speech?

If so, then this seems to go against the Forst Amendment.

Sorry, Australian here so just speculating

> Also it’s not age verification really

Not yet, but it will be one day if it passes

Servers still kinda fit.

So, all of us-west-1?

By that logic, my NAS (TOS6) falls under that category.