On 3/8/26 1:05 PM, David C Rankin wrote:
It would be difficult to make the argument that any Arch content falls within the scope of the proposals. That notwithstanding, even if you could make the argument it applied to Arch, the individual state laws are currently enjoined on free-speech grounds and will take years to be settled (social media co's have plenty of money to extend the litigation near indefinitely).
Now the laws requiring the OS to collect and provide age information may well need to be discussed, though same caveat, while California and Colorado are slated to require this by 2027, it is doubtful these laws won't be enjoined before actually taking effect. (California's Assembly Bill No. 1043; Colorado's Senate Bill 26-051)
Another option is the MidnightBSD notice, simply advising residents of states that requires age collection and provision are not authorized to use the FOSS offering:
"California residents are not authorized to use MidnightBSD for desktop use in the state of California effective January 1, 2027."
Solves all the problems without changes, and places the burden on resolving issues correctly with the citizens of the state promulgating the law.
This may end up being an interesting exercise to watch. Nothing short of a war between the privacy advocates, and the advocates for the protection of children. Not to mention the FOSS community's eagerness to have more personal information captured in the OS -- and then by what, systemd?
Funny, when I grew up, child-rearing was the responsibility of the parents making nanny-laws an unwanted intrusion on the libertt rights of the parents rendering them unnecessary. Curious when/where that became not the case.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
