this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
-2 points (37.5% liked)

Change My View

40 readers
27 users here now

A place to learn something new, or strengthen your own position. Progress is impossible without a willingness to change.

#Rules

  1. Remain civil and friendly. Personal attacks, excessive snark, or similar will not be tolerated. Downvoting based on disagreement (rather than quality of discourse) may also be bannable.

  2. All posts should contain a view as the title, and should have an explanation of the reasoning in the body.

  3. All top level comments should address the original viewpoint, either challenging it, or seeking clarification.

founded 1 day ago
MODERATORS
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works
-2
Having a local, "age" flag used for filtering content isn't a bad idea. (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 11 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) by PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works to c/changemyview@sh.itjust.works
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With California's AB1043, this was on my mind, although wasn't specifically about that law. Generally, giving users more control is a good thing, esspecially when it means excluding potentially distressing or harmful content. In general, having filtering settings like this provides a way for users to pick and chose what they want to see. While I don't think an age value is the best way of implementing it, I do think it is likely to be better than having nothing at all.

So long as its only a local value, the only significant downside I see, is its use for fingerprinting and tracking. This is an issue, but being only one number, is relatively inspecific and unreliable. User agent strings provide far more data, and are far harder to manipulate meaningfully, for example. Furthermore, so long as its all managed locally, privacy focused software would also have the ability to either not provide the value, to use brackets in UI rather than a asking for a specific number, or to just use a default value, like 99. Given that, it seems like an age flag would be just another in a sea of fingerprinting methods, while the convenience and utility provided could be significant.

Ultimately, I feel like a series of boolean flags for different subject matters to filter would be better, but because an age value seems closer to being implemented, thats my focus.

So, having a local, "age" flag used for filtering content isn't a bad idea.

Change my view.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eyron@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Your idea is a good one. The main way they want to use that "local" age flag still sends a signal about the user to the server. Even if it’s coarse, that's tracking and privacy concern.

I believe repeating what's worked might be the better option. Other media solved this with standardized rating systems. The internet could add a similar content signal alongside this. A similar content-rating header (G, PG, PG-13, R, M) could achieve many of the same goals as an age flag or boolean filters.

The ratings describe the content, not the user. Filtering can stay local, without disclosing anything about the user. Current parental controls rely on blocklists or detection, which are unreliable. A standard rating signal would allow them to be simpler and more consistent. Operating systems and/or browsers still have to allow controls, but that could look more like locally selecting ratings than strict age checks.

I think more critics need to recognize that without workable alternatives, others will push for these bad solutions. The good news is this isn’t new, and other industries seem to have mostly avoided making these systems legal requirements.