If you find yourself falling for these kinds of jokes then you may need to reconsider how you evaluate news.

You realise some applications have a mix of content right?

I dont care about some slopcoded week old project. This is not a serious alternative.

this is entirely optional. Just because they exist doesnt mean they can be improved. The ones currently available do not cover this usecase. The use case being a locally installed application wants to check if the user is 18 before showing them something.

If you’re a user that requires age verification (IE a child) then you cant just add it. Your parent will be the root user controlling your account.

How does that verify nothing? It provides perfectly fine age verification.

No it doesnt. If I ask are you 18 and you reply no/yes that is verifying your age without doxing you. This field is for when the user is NOT admin on the machine. This field would be filled out by the parent when they’re setting up their kids machine.

How is it not suitable? If I setup my kids age and an app wants to use the portal to check if he is over 18 and it returns no. That suitable age verification and its privacy respecting. Which is what is being suggested.

Whats wrong with Age verification? its fine to verify age, the problem with the age verification laws is the issue of how age is being verified. In this case its fine because its local first and privacy respecting.

Parental controls on linux are a good thing. This is a fine privacy respecting implementation. People are overreacting.

fair phone lacks the hardware security to run fully featured grapheneOS. Other than that it does work on fairphone.