To get your data deleted in the states that require it you have to submit a photo of yourself which I really don't want to do for a sketchy company with ties to evil billionaire Peter Thiel.

Would that data be admissible in a lawsuit if you'd already submitted a deletion request?

It is not OSI® Open Source Definition™ approved, but it is open source for the common use of the term.

The accepted term is "source available".

Restrictions on usage type are not commonly accepted as open source by any community that I'm aware of.

That is according to OSI. OSI does not get to dictate the english language.

I don't say it to be pedantic about the term, but there are hard restrictions on usage of this tool in commercial environments.. So it's important people are aware and don't just assume it's an open source.

Right. OSI tried to use their authority to make it seem like AWS's strip mining of the open source ecosystem was the moral high ground. HN has a lot of wishful commercial operators who side with AWS. So they use "open source" lower case as a weapon to harass the open source developers. Personally I tend to side with the developers who try to figure out a way to keep their projects viable.

HN always does this, make ridiculous generalizations about the thousands of people that comment on HN.

people like directing anger at a "bad guy"

> just should not use smartphones and the internet

That's ridiculous. Phones are being made more and more of a requirement to participate in society, including by governments.

Which is exactly my point! This is exactly the thing that desperately needs to be undone.

>That's ridiculous. Phones are being made more and more of a requirement to participate in society, including by governments.

The latter is what's ridiculous, not what the parent suggests.

If the government wants to force me to use a certain device, it should give me that device.

There's always people that say it's the parents responsibility to monitor their kids. But as a parent, you either give your kids full access to the internet or nothing. The fault lies with the OS companies Google, Microsoft, Apple. They do a terrible job with parental controls. They make it very hard to setup, they're confusing and hard to use plus they barely work. I think they just do it as a checkbox for marketing or regulatory purposes. That's where I'd like to see regulation.

OS makers should not be in the business of enforcing censorship. If you want to shield your children from the "horrors" of the internet either use proper parental control software, or don't allow access at all like you said until your kids are mature to understand what's going on

The onus is on the parent to the be parent. Not the tech industry, and especially not the government.

If the solution is parental control software, that also puts onus on operating systems to present the means for such software to work properly. This does not mean the OS should censor, it might mean the OS offers a censorship interface.

At least we seem to agree the solution lies with better tools for parents.

Who are you to decide what should or should not be?

"proper parental control software" doesn't exist for a lot of the platforms.

Ironically, the UK already has ISP level implementations to filter adult/illegal content that seem to work in most cases as intended. The lobby for this legislation came from groups concerned about matters more prevalent on large social media platforms who will barely be touched by the new regulations.

The answer is a computer the child must sit down and use in front of the family. Steve Jobs ruined the world with the invention of the iPhone, and whoever else is responsible for the more generic smartphone. Now parents use one to quieten their children and governments use it to surveil us all.

Why is giving kids access to the whole internet a problem?

I'm a millennial, I had access to porn as a kid, that's 25 years ago.

What's the deal with it?

The biggest issues are social media related, not by seeing how people exchange body fluids.

The media environment is so right wing (yes really) that Democrats don't get the credit for that kind of thing while Republicans don't get the blame for absolute ransacking of the country.

Wired were deliberately killed by Apple in order for them to make that $20 billion. We should not celebrate billionaires making the world worse so they can make more money.

It's not just the shithead cops, it's the voters. All the "Blue Lives Matter", "thin blue line", "back the blue" propaganda works towards giving police infinite powers with zero accountability. This is what voters want and they've said so loudly over and over again.