128
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blemgo@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago

I find that move extremely funny, since it's purely made for sensationalism and nothing else. I mean, if you hate how systems implemented age verification, then why don't you remove its identity verification too, i.e. also optional fields for stuff like your address an e-mail that most users don't even fill out.

There is no mechanism verifying what birth date you type in - you can type whatever date you want and systems doesn't care.

I'd say no matter where you stand with age verification, this is the best solution to handle the situation. After all, any and all age checks we have nowadays are a black box anyways. There is no real knowing how other systems are checking ages, and there is AFAIK no real government mandated rules on how it is verified. They could make you scan your ID's front, back, nuclear composition and dietary preferences and give you a result that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a proper age verification procedure.

If the government wants to introduce age verification, they have to do it themselves - build an API that handles the age verification, similar to how the digital ID in Germany works, as an example. If they want proper age verification, they also have to take the blame themselves if things go wrong.

[-] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 week ago

My line in the sand is when a distro/app starts enforcing entry of birth date data. Having a database field to store it, or even an optional prompt for it isn't the point where I bin it.

[-] belazor@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

This is the most sane take I’ve read in this entire debacle. Between arguing the semantics of attestation vs verification and whether we need five hundred forks and PRs, I’m glad to read this.

The biggest mistake the original PR did was not make it more clear it’s not directly because of the laws themselves, it’s to support higher level systems that may want to or need to comply. Systemd is no more complying with any present or future laws than a keyboard manufacturer is violating the law if the user uses it to type racially motivated hate speech.

[-] Blemgo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That is a valid point. Of course it still would be rather anonymised, but it could always be a 'frog in the pot' type situation, where most drastic changes are introduced very slowly. My main concern at the end of the day is how much info will be required to be given to services and how much data will be actually stored. If it's anonymised, then I don't see much of a threat. If a service requires me to fully identify for an age check, that's an entirely different thing, especially considering the last of Discord's data leaks.

[-] Bloefz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I would but I've always been opposed to systemd anyway.

But for me it's a slippery slope I don't think we should even get on.

[-] socsa@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah I hated systemd since before it was cool to hate systemd again.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

You know I remember when age verification was a thing on porn sites.

No big deal, I was like 12 and could easily say "yupp, I was born April 20th, 1969" and there was no problem.

Now, in several states that has escalated to you showing your ID.

Do you think this is the end game? Systemd made it clear with this move that any kind of US law passed will be able to be honored by their architecture. They didn't take a stand that you would expect from pretty much the entire Linux community as a whole.

And see the funny part is where you talk about "if the government wants age verification they have to do it themselves" they pretty much do in USA its called your social security number. Banks, auto dealerships, landlords etc use it all the time and its very effective.

By not taking a strong stance against what is happening here you are paving the road brick by brick to having to provide full on SSN and very plausibly retina scans or something similar in the not so distant future before you can even login to your computer or phone.

I don't understand, how people here are missing that. Fuck we are on Lemmy because we see how shit worked with things like reddit and others. Things always escalate when control and greed are the primary motivators.

This will escalate. And when it does I want you to remember that people were rightfully making a HUGE FUCKING DEAL about when systemd started doing this because by then you will be able to see clearly how it led to whatever surveillance wet dream they are absolutely going to force on us. It will be clear, and this will be step 1 .

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fluxx@mander.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

I agree with all that you've said. But why add it now? Why haven't they added it a long time ago? Or if now they remembered, why not other extra optional fields that some people might want, like gender, sex, any other field? Oh, it would be too political? I see...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Yup. All this crying about the field is a big nothing burger.

[-] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago
[-] org@lemmy.org 6 points 1 week ago

They’ll just keep forkin’ and removing that field haha

[-] bruhduh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Its about forkin' time

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Honestly it's such a minor change, I'm pretty sure they could just grab all the upstream commits in the future and not do anything and it'll be fine.

[-] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 week ago

None of the id fields in the systemd db are required to be filled. This is useless. Simply don't put any personal info in, and bam, you're already liberated, from laws that aren't even in effect yet!

[-] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Will you still say that when they implement ID checking functionality?

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago

Obviously not, that would be something very very different than what they've done.

[-] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

What systemd has done is the following: They went "we speak for the distros utilizing our program now"

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

This is perfectly logical and I agree. Except that this controversy has prompted me to go learn about Lennart Poettering. I've been using systemd forever and I like it - I like journald and remote journald, I like networkd, I even deleted cron off my systems and use systemd timers exclusively. I knew there was some controversy about Lennart, but I didn't really care. Now that I've read a bit about his background and, maybe more importantly, his new company - I don't have a good feeling for the future of systemd.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

There's no age verification in systemd. That field doesn't verify anything

[-] Charlxmagne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Okay I've said this so many times but (open source) code is speech and thus protected by free speech laws. Also idk if anyone's noticed but it's pretty obvious ID verification is for mass surveillance and obbo purposes. Now why would this apply to software that we already know doesn't spy on you? Until now, proprietary software and big tech platforms already spied on you, but it could - to an extent be pseudonymised. This isn't about spying on people, they already do that, it's about removing pseudonymisation - instead of your data being stored under: User #2044820 it'll be your full govt name and address leaving no room for doubt or plausible deniability.

It is by every metric, useless to provide ID verification for software that collects no data, at best it would just give them a better idea of the demographic. Also it's literally open source, the GPL prohibits disallowing people from forking/editing it and it prohibits restrictions on the way in which it can be edited, which is legally binding.

[-] Samsy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

I'm not into this, but is it the nerd version of releasing forks and torches?

[-] webkitten@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

They literally just added a field in the JSON schema to support a birth date field which is completely optional and has no relevance on the project. People are so dumb.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

if there is no malicious intent in adding this, they really should learn to read the room.

[-] cley_faye@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

The biggest defense for this I see is:

  • it's not bad now
  • it's not mandatory
  • it will remain unused like the other fields that were previously there
  • you can put anything in it

Then, tell me, why bother adding this in the first place, exactly at the time governments are looking toward full control of everybody's computers? If it's that innocent and useless, either someone really likes throwing shit up, or it won't stop there.

And given the slate of other things that "didn't stop there" in the past few years, you know, it cost nothing to be cautious. Especially if it's "so useless you won't even notice it's there" after all.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Quazatron@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago
  1. Fork a project that you have a problem with;
  2. Write a strong worded manifesto;
  3. Revel in those sweet sweet internet clicks;
  4. Try to gather a team of seasoned engineers to keep and evolve the project;
  5. Most likely fail, look for the next controversy, repeat.
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The DOB field is different from name and address because it is a fixed attribute that never changes. Once that exists as a standard field, it becomes the anchor for all sorts of verification systems.

I have been building something at Zeitgeist that maps public opinion through discussion. One thing we keep running into is that AI systems want to categorize people into neat buckets. They will say "users under 18" vs "over 18" and move on. But real human disagreement does not work that way. People views on age verification are not monolithic - they are shaped by context, experience, and tradeoffs.

We are seeing this play out everywhere now. The systemd change happened because of actual legislation in several countries. It is not theoretical anymore. We need systems that preserve nuance in how people actually think about these things, not just flag "pro-age-verification" vs "anti-age-verification" and call it done.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tabular@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I can see it's just an optional text field but the ick isn't optional. It's leaning towards submission in comparison to resistance. I'm hoping such laws get repealed, rather than spread.

[-] Inucune@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Reject the age verification.

[-] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

You probably want to mod it so that whenever (in future) it's called on to send an age to an external service then it just supplies a new randomised dob or age. Another good feature would be to make sure that the OS exposes any such checks to the user.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago
[-] Dathknight@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

This is bs ...

Instead of fighting the laws and the people behind it, 'we' (as in 'the community') infight about some minor commit?

If the reason is data privacy, why not also remove 'realName', 'emailAdress' and 'location'? 🙄

[-] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

As far as I can tell the Name Email and location are all voluntarily provided by the user.

This is something that will be used whether you want it to or not (that makes it invasive) because of the laws around it (of course depending on where you are).

Having fields I can ignore as a user isn't the same as this guided attempt by lawmakers to eventually get you to give ID and retina scans just to use a computer.

This is step 1. That is why people are freaking out about it.

And I know systemd isn't doing this out of spite, but I do wish the scene would stand up for the user more... Just say no California or whatever other shit place decides to enact that and boom problem solved. Not their fault or problem anymore.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

As far as I can tell the Name Email and location are all voluntarily provided by the user.

So is birthDate.

This is something that will be used whether you want it to or not (that makes it invasive) because of the laws around it (of course depending on where you are).

How? First and most importantly, systemd doesn't do anything to enforce, require or verify the field.

Second, I control what is installed on my PC, that's the ENTIRE POINT of using a FOSS OS. The FREEDOM to install whatever I want, or not. If there is an application that is using that field to enforce some bs law, then I simply won't install it.

This isn't Windows, there isn't a Microsoft to force you to install software updates that you don't want. You're FREE to not install software that does things that you don't like. This includes any hypothetical future software that would require this field or validate this field.

[-] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

You control what you install on your pc and I'd be willing to bet that whatever open source OS it is, probably uses Systemd. Unless you're a Unix person.

They have set this up in a way that yes, right now at 11:21pm UTC on March 24th it isn't being enforced or required.

But because of the replies of some of the maintainers in their github about this very merge they are suggesting that as soon as it becomes hard law, it will be enforced by them.

Particularly the part where one was replying to a system76 developer who mentioned that they are in talks with state legislators right now, that these proposed laws are very possibly going to be overturned, and that open source software might not even be required to do this at all and that we should give it more tim before we do something like this and the reply was:

"It is possible that California law will be changed. But similar ideas are popping up in other contexts and it's unlikely that they'll all go away. This implementation is fairly generic and useful for other things besides age verification, so we shouldn't decide whether to merge it or not based on a single law in any jurisdiction."

This suggests that they are doing this because of laws and ideas like this that are coming into play. And that they didn't want to wait on the confirmation of whether it was law or not, they did it anyway. Why? That's not very open. That isn't really taking a stand to support Linux or its users that is voluntarily getting ahead of the control mechanism that "similar ideas" are going to use.

They shouldn't have done this. In mine, and many, many other peoples opinions as well.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
128 points (90.0% liked)

Technology

83498 readers
441 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS