{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreictyqkmevaa5ltk5bwdvj2vp32jbzq26qqcknhdbk2ocv34o5gf6q",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgu6trgkfvo2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33235&p=271037#p271037",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-12T06:28:06.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "First off: New York can pass all bills it wants but it's not our task to police the internet, and I will not make it our task. If there is a problem with kids accessing our website or forum, then that is on the parents of kids to parentally control them. If you breed kids, you'll have to \"adult\" 24/7 from then on. Don't want that? Then don't breed kids.\nI will not geoblock based on this nonsense. I briefly considered it when the UK started this last year, but rejected it. It's not our responsibility to limit access from locations that might have restrictive rules. It will be the responsibility of those regions to block outbound access to sites not complying with their local laws, just like any other good authoritarian country does.\nOtherwise? We don't care. My business is in Sweden, and only subject to Swedish law. The bill has a bunch of US defaultism applied speaking about \"out of state\" -- out of state does not mean beyond the purview of the federal government which applies solely to the USA.\nAny of our websites can be hosted in any jurisdiction, so if there's an imposed restriction on geographical server location, it can be moved elsewhere. They are currently not hosted in the USA other than the US download mirror (and in terms of age restriction to that, see below), and I don't intend to host them there.\n\n_Assuming_ it can somehow become enforced _globally_ in its proposed state or something extremely similar to it, then let's have a look, shall we?\nSo, the **hypothetical** :\nIf you read the bill carefully, you'll notice that it wants a signal to be requested by the website, service or application from a connecting client or (in the case of an application) a device API (assuming built into an O.S.)\ni.e.: the bill asks that a website, service or application checks a device API to get a user's age group, and restrict access based on that age group if the site, service or application is age-limited in its content. **It is incumbent on the connecting client/device to provide this signal.** If such a signal _isn't_ received, then we on our end **can rightfully assume it is not a covered manufacturer** and this entire proposed legislation doesn't apply (since the legislation will _mandate_ such signals be sent by all compliant devices).\nThis means that if and when a web client/device provides a specific signal to the web server, service or application, _then and only then_ would we need to check the age group. However, since Pale Moon is suitable for all age groups (PEGI-3), we effectively don't need to do anything in terms of software availability, structure or implementation.\nSince the forum is the only part of our project subject to an age limit (I've set that to 16+ in our forum registration terms), it will be easy to comply with that by checking for a signal from whatever client/device that is covered, and blocking as-needed (e.g. by checking a request header or browser API, if implemented that way -- there are no details surrounding practical implementations yet, so the bill is running ahead of its goal; as a developer, we'd need a detailed API specification to be able to check), which would be similar to receiving a parental control signal but with the difference that parental control would be client-side. Once again, if such a signal isn't received then we can assume the client/device isn't covered and we don't have to restrict anything.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Forum and website • Re: The site and an idiotic bill",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-12T06:28:06.000Z"
}