this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
359 points (72.5% liked)
linuxmemes
30735 readers
1673 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
- Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn, no politics, no trolling or ragebaiting.
- Don't come looking for advice, this is not the right community.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves/tolerates/hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
5. π¬π§ Language/ΡΠ·ΡΠΊ/Sprache
- This is primarily an English-speaking community. π¬π§π¦πΊπΊπΈ
- Comments written in other languages are allowed.
- The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
- Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
6. (NEW!) Regarding public figures
We all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations. - Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
- We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
- Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed. Β
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't even know where this rumour came from.
Itβs not a rumor, systemd merged a PR that explicitly said it was to allow handling the new age verification laws. Just because they arenβt actually verifying anything doesnβt mean that they didnβt merge code in direct support of the laws. And why in the world would this even be handled at systemd level anyway?
All of this was discussed in the PR.
Systemd is present on the vast majority of Linix systems so it made the most sense to put it in systemd. It is an optional field so it is up to applications and distros on weither to use it for something. Age verification laws are legally binding so compliance is not optional.
If you have a problem with age verification call your local lawmaker. Don't attack a bunch of devs who somehow got stuck in the middle.
Well, how do I put it... compliance is optional
Ideally, we wouldn't need to do age verification at all. But if it's absolutely required, the most privacy-preserving way would be:
It's not.
the current implementation allows reading the precise age
Exactly, and some of the laws require just asking if the age is over a some pre-defined threshold, not sending the full date, for example "is the user over 18? Is the user over 15? 13?"
And just to be clear, I do think that "protecting the children" is just an excuse to push surveillance tech that was very convenient to use after the Epstein files. I am strongly against these laws and I am supporting ($$$) activist groups fighting against them. Do consider donating or getting involved too if you can.
But this specific change isn't adding surveillance to Linux. It's just a date of birth field that a parent can set. I can see why a parent would want it instead of using shady and intrusive "child control" software that takes over the computer.
You need to store the date of birth to update the user's reported age automatically. It makes sense and puts the "protecting the children" responsibility back on parents instead of third parties that every website is now starting to use.
The systemd solution is not even reusable for actual verification because it can't provide any cryptographic proof of the verification! It's literally just a date.
systemd is introducing birthDate as a user json field, if that's what you mean with rumor.
The PR to revert that change was not merged:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/41179
Next the OS will have to verify this is correct
Be like grapheneos and say no to age verification
That is (or is not) happening regardless of systemd involvement. This is just a place to store the value. Not having such a place in systemd would just mean it is stored in some other place. This doesn't make it significantly easier to implement age verification nor would reverting it make it significantly harder. It's just a field that may be used by people who are legally obligated to store or read that data.
Every rant about systemd is a wasted opportunity to yell at someone who deserves it, honestly. Focus on the people pushing age verification laws or doing age verification.
It's another domino fallen, another step towards absolute control
I don't think that's a reasonable assessment of this change
It was added with a note specifically that the implementation was related to a law that was described as stupid.
I think it's pretty clear exactly what this was being put in for, and why two MSFT devs were ready to approve.
There's no "it was just..." about this, it was step one of a coordinated plan that has not been abandoned.
Poettering doesn't work for Microsoft.
The approver of the pull request does...
I agree, your point?
Poettering only very recently left microslop
Yes, that's another way of saying what I said...
So apps can look at it and verify the users age? π€
"Verify" is a strong word, if the age in there isn't actually verified. If I say my realName is Nunya Bissnis, my location is Atlantis and my birthDate is 1970-01-01, who's going to check if that's at all accurate?
It's really a declaration, or an assertion.
Doesn't matter if it's accurate. Now they have more unique data points to help track your digital footprint.
Good point.
Maybe there should be a way to randomise it. Maybe there could be a script to automatically update my DoB entry to "Today - 18 years" every day. Or maybe there are some default values we could use that make it hard to track, like John Doe, 1970-01-01.
Or maybe we just don't enforce entering anything. Given it's not a thing in every jurisdiction, there needs to be a toggle to activate sharing it anyway. Be a shame if people found a way to trick the system.
Though the proposed Flatpak change works by responding to age brackets rather than specific dates. That would also obscure it a little, but be enough for parental controls. Whether those are reasonable is a different discussion I don't feel like having at the moment.
Again, you're right that it would help narrow it down, which might make it an arms race akin to security, where we'd have to keep finding ways to mess with the tracking, but there are more implementation layers that I imagine will be harder to enforce.
I also agree that it's iffy, just as the realName and location fields, but it's not quite as bad as all the newly-minted systemd haters make it out to be. If you're an OG hater looking for more reasons, sure, be my guest.
If someone populates it and if apps do it. The "debate" is whether this is something systemd should or should not have done.
It is not something systemd needs. The platform requesting age needs to get it directly from the user.
i am told by a very reliable dipshit that everything in this thread is maga disinformation
I only mean the verification is clearly in the app that uses it then.
Because most people apparently don't know the difference between a system manager and an operating system.