“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt
Same logic that the germans used to get the jews. Everyone just accepted it. And if a group of people is a threat - like computer fuckers are - we get bribed and brainwashed with incel culture and corpospeak bullshit.Its literally that easy. Ask your cia case officer at any major us university how that works. They might even tell you.
The western world is a giant fucking psy op.
TL;DR: Start educating computer fuckers instead of blaming. Every westerner is either resistance or complicit
-
@perigee @zzt @MrBerard I will just repeat what Its FOSS said when the feature was merged:
In simple words, this is something that adds a new, optional field that can then be used by other open source projects like xdg-desktop-portal to build age verification compliance on top of, without systemd itself doing anything with the data or making it mandatory to provide
So yeah, that is what this change looks like, but this won't be stopping the haters and conspiracy theorists from making wild accusations, of course.
I don't know which hat you're wearing today ("hater" or "conspiracy theorist") but I do hope you enjoy the look.
I feel my asking a naive question has landed me into what I'll euphemistically describe as a 'heated debate'.
I'm kinda seeing both sides, on the one hand slippery slope arguments have questionable validity ('did you know copper wires can enable a surveillance network?') but on the other, if this change doesn't constitute a move worth opposing to you, what event down the line would you actually oppose?
Oh, and folks, cooling the tone would be welcome here.
-
@zzt
When they start bringing up lisp machines we'll know the apocalypse is nigh. -
“it’s just a column in a database, aren’t you being dramatic” thanks fucker, believe it or not I know how software works and I know perfectly well the type of horrid crap we can build on top of a simple backend if it’s encapsulated in the right type of system
@zzt
One could ask ibm how they implemented the stamp cards for the holocaust. Yet this company still exists, let alone has gotten any form of punishment. Its the same logic for any nazi despite a select few for a show trial. The western states have systematically shielded the nazis from prosecution, same as they do now.The issue is not the people saying "what should i do, I'm alone." Its the people who say "no mate, the nazis never lost control is a conspiracy theory."
-
I feel my asking a naive question has landed me into what I'll euphemistically describe as a 'heated debate'.
I'm kinda seeing both sides, on the one hand slippery slope arguments have questionable validity ('did you know copper wires can enable a surveillance network?') but on the other, if this change doesn't constitute a move worth opposing to you, what event down the line would you actually oppose?
Oh, and folks, cooling the tone would be welcome here.
"What event down the line would you actually oppose?"
I can think of several places where I'd say a line had been crossed:
- any requirement by a distro to make adding that data mandatory (easy to resolve, simply switch distros)
- any requirement by a distro to provide external verification for the arbitrary collection of digits that gets stored in a DoB field
The verification I think is key. As an example, the UNIX
addusercommand has prompted for things like "Real Name", "Phone Number", "Room Number" for decades. Nobody actually provides that information. This, honestly, is not conceptually different. -
"What event down the line would you actually oppose?"
I can think of several places where I'd say a line had been crossed:
- any requirement by a distro to make adding that data mandatory (easy to resolve, simply switch distros)
- any requirement by a distro to provide external verification for the arbitrary collection of digits that gets stored in a DoB field
The verification I think is key. As an example, the UNIX
addusercommand has prompted for things like "Real Name", "Phone Number", "Room Number" for decades. Nobody actually provides that information. This, honestly, is not conceptually different.Hahaha 'room number' is brill. They stopped shy of 'name of your frat'!
See, I had a hunch that verification was the real tricky point.
But when this does happen (because it will), not having this DB field verified will mean plenty of stuff can't be done on the alt. distros which do not have it.
Which is not a dichotomy that can be induced if the move was resisted upstream of that?Or is this an externality, like the problem is w/ services mandating verified age?
-
Hahaha 'room number' is brill. They stopped shy of 'name of your frat'!
See, I had a hunch that verification was the real tricky point.
But when this does happen (because it will), not having this DB field verified will mean plenty of stuff can't be done on the alt. distros which do not have it.
Which is not a dichotomy that can be induced if the move was resisted upstream of that?Or is this an externality, like the problem is w/ services mandating verified age?
Like 'as long as we will have VPNs and jurisdiction where age verification isn't mandatory, we don't have to worry about the creep of online services being age-(meaning ID) gated?
-
Like 'as long as we will have VPNs and jurisdiction where age verification isn't mandatory, we don't have to worry about the creep of online services being age-(meaning ID) gated?
Just to inject some levity with a glib comment, maybe I won't matter, as surely a simple cognitive test will be able to sort people who entered secondary education after 2023 from the ones who don't?
I guess annoyingly, this doesn't work once brain-rotten kids are all adults, but I'm sure by then there'll be another cognitive thalidomide whose exposure test will be able to de facto tell age.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt
I tend to disagreeMost of the "computer fuckers" are against the censorship and enforcement of such law.
But systemd , push by RedHat and Poettering (which have done no good software, remember pulseaudio...) has, I don't know how, a big influence in many distribution board.
Systemd was adopted/forced by distribution even with a big opposition and not being technically sound when adopted.
All the pr to remove this code of "age" into systemd was shoot down by the same.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt i wish some major Linux vendors just had the gender-neutral genitalia to say "if this law passes we'll withdraw from the US market".
-
@zzt @MrBerard "age verification code" is a bit of a grandiose term for a field that can store a value and retrieve a value. There is nothing anywhere in systemd that determines how (or even if) a distro decides what value to put into that field.
Even if it does get used by a distro, it is likely to be something along the lines of
"please enter your age. don't lie because that would be naughty > "when creating a new user account.
@losttourist @zzt @MrBerard you can't call yourself a LGBTQ+ ally and defend one of the fundamental building blocks of worldwide queer youth censorship, that's not how it works my dude
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt I wish I could boost this a billion times! Thank you for all of this!
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt Let's just block California on all download pages and mirrors of all distributions. Then the can age verify all day.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt <insert stupid non enforcable US inspired EULA terms in software sold in the EU>
-
@zzt @MrBerard "age verification code" is a bit of a grandiose term for a field that can store a value and retrieve a value. There is nothing anywhere in systemd that determines how (or even if) a distro decides what value to put into that field.
Even if it does get used by a distro, it is likely to be something along the lines of
"please enter your age. don't lie because that would be naughty > "when creating a new user account.
@losttourist @zzt @MrBerard if it’s so pointless then let’s not do it
-
“it’s just a column in a database” said presumably a full grown adult whose ability to live under capitalism is a column in their bank’s database
@zzt "It's just a column in a database" said someone at IBM back in '33
-
@losttourist @zzt @MrBerard you can't call yourself a LGBTQ+ ally and defend one of the fundamental building blocks of worldwide queer youth censorship, that's not how it works my dude
How fundamental do we go in the building blocks? Cause by that token, it is the very existence of the concept of date of birth that's fundamental here.
This is just a question of how low in the stack of fundations-superstructure intervention is appropriate to protect privacy and free access to information.
-
I feel my asking a naive question has landed me into what I'll euphemistically describe as a 'heated debate'.
I'm kinda seeing both sides, on the one hand slippery slope arguments have questionable validity ('did you know copper wires can enable a surveillance network?') but on the other, if this change doesn't constitute a move worth opposing to you, what event down the line would you actually oppose?
Oh, and folks, cooling the tone would be welcome here.
@MrBerard @losttourist @zzt my tone is cool. I'm not proposing accepting a slipshod solution because "it's not that bad". It's going to start not that bad and become terrible because we gave it an inch and it will take a mile. As others have said, now is the time to oppose it. Not when it's gotten a foothold.
-
@MrBerard @losttourist @zzt my tone is cool. I'm not proposing accepting a slipshod solution because "it's not that bad". It's going to start not that bad and become terrible because we gave it an inch and it will take a mile. As others have said, now is the time to oppose it. Not when it's gotten a foothold.
Okay. But why does this moment constitute the foothold?
Isn't the problem political rather than technological? All jurisdictions are moving towards age verification systems that are problematic enough without having OS level DoB verification, if we stop the Linux thing (which admittedly seems very out of sync with the philosophy), these are still there.
Sure, it's better if the Linux thing isn't, all things equal, but the foothold is a sociopolitical one?
