this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
161 points (78.0% liked)
linuxmemes
30723 readers
1486 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
Because it will not be enough.
Because they will come back and say "look at this loophole"
"Think of the children" you'll all say as you agree to give your government authority to determine what information you can or cannot access as "age appropriate" completely ignorant of what you're handing over.
This would be fine if it was just for you, but you're trying to give my control over my system and what I can access away from me because you're too short-sighted to see what comes after volunteer age reporting. And when that still doesn't save the children, which it won't, because it is NEVER ABOUT THE FUCKING CHILDREN ITS ALWAYS ABOUT CONTROL, you'll tell me again that it's just another little minor infraction. It's just a little bit more than volunteer reporting.
Afterall, won't someone please think of the children?!
This is a law FOR PARENTS.
It's not a law for children, it doesn't target to protect children from up, but to give parents the tools to set the age of the kids themselves.
Do you have any proof that those systems were created for control? You sure have if you express your opinions with such confidence.
I can't reconcile the fact that the entire discussion is about how we can control, based on user age settings at the OS level, the content people can access and you asking me what my proof is that the system is being created for control.
I really don't know how to respond because it's self evident, isn't it? It's there in the law? Why else add the tag to the user? Like.. I just...what? Of course it's for fucking control. There's no other reason to have it.
As for a more broad general "the government wants to control"...I just... Look around? DMCA is a prime example. Or read people that are smarter than me about it.
They even say why I'm the message
Now I can hear you already. "But EFF says age verification is the real evil and this isn't verification! It's just a text tag any root user can change!"
And that's where I'm saying it isn't. Now. But it will be. Who is pushing for this? Do you think they'll be okay with a giant Linux loophole? Or will they try to close it? Is that not always the typical pattern with laws? Pass it then patch the loopholes.
We've gone from "click to prove you're 18" to "provide a date" to "provide an id" to "make the OS and other apps verify."
Why should I ever assume that it will stop at a simple plain text annotation? The slippery slope is documented. It's real.
This is a poor wording
That law doesn't require to verify the age of the user, it doesn't have to, because it's a law for parents.
What you're saying is exactly slippery slope. You're taking earlier examples of completely different laws, with different purposes and mechanisms, and you make your argument based on how the implementation of those laws worked.
Occam's razor explanation of DMCA 1201: The law makers wanted to foolproof the law and implemented security measures that weren't needed.
Also THE only argument you have for the fact thisaw is going to be changed is the law that changed (even if only temporarily) IN A GOOD DIRECTION!
You really made me laugh.
I want to know that too.
I know meta lobbied for app store accountability act or smth, I don't remember it's name. They didn't do that to spy on people, but because they wanted to shift the blame.
To actually verify, need not able modify after verify by id or similar.
But root always able to modify. So cannot work.
Uh. It's your computer. Input whatever you want there, idk.
I vehemently disagree with age verification policies fyi, but we also need to recognise that this is not age "verification". I would never truthfully surrender my personal data in my computer lmao. The name and surname fields in my pc are "fushuan" and "lmao" for God's sake.
Wait, did you write your actual name, surname and email in your computer? Cuz those are required fields in there too. You aren't losing any control of your computer if they ask you to write A date on a field of your user profile. You are root on your computer, no? It's your system as you said it, no? Maybe you are the short-sighted one? You are allowed to input that you were born in 420-06-09, no one is gonna stop you, you are root.
Is there a government push to verify my name and email before I can access content or is there a government push to have age verification be at the OS level? Could maybe that be a meaningful differentiator that makes "lul r u still using ur real name? Fucking Idiot" response not relevant?
I understand the technical differences and that we can just put a bullshit date format passing value there. I'm not fucking stupid.
My objection is that it is step 0. Before you can have an OS verify to meet government mandated verificaiton, you must create the value store.
My objection is that we're entertaining putting in the infrastructure that enables actual verification.
You know what else enables actual verification? Having electricity. I know it sounds stupid and me being condescending, but I really want to drive home the idea that something being a step to potentially doing age verification doesn't make it inherently bad. As presented, having that field also opens up the possibility for parents to be able to set a non root account for their kids and be able to control their access in an easier way.
As is, being a locally enforced data point, is something that can enable giving more control to parents without surrendering anything to governments. That's a a positive thing that I'm sure many parents would like, being able to enable "kid mode" in the OS level for their kids, in a way where the parents are the ones with the agency to do it.
Idk, I feel like demonizing things for their potential bad future is not the best way to approach technology. Raise warnings, address immediate concerns, and put stoppers when actual issues arise. That's how I like to operate.
And I never said it was inherently bad.
It's the context. It's the context. It's the context. It's the context.
Please engage with me and the arguments i am making - not imagined narrow slices. This isn't a high school debate where you get points for speed and word count.
Let me restate: In the context of governments actively seeking to restrict access to information on the Internet, I think implementing ANY infrastructure that move towards the government's ability to achieve their censorship is bad and shouldn't be done.
I'm not saying there's no benefit to adding a plain text date field to user information. I'm not saying it's the end of the world now. I'm not saying it's verification.
I'm saying use this as a point to stand up and fight and say "NO, You have no authority over the information I can access. And we should not give in because 'for the children is a lie' and they're not actually trying to protect children while our government is RUN BY LITERAL CHILD FUCKERS."
I understand your point, I really do, it's just that this post and the arguments presented are overly emotional and sensationalist. You can write what you wrote here instead of shout words into a post where no one that should read them will read them. You create an echo chamber and muddy facts.
I agree that maybe not the best moment, maybe in the future when your government of child fuckers changes (please don't do the US defaultism, it's annoying). It's not that point I'm trying to combat, it's the overly emotional and biased comment.
Also, maybe I write too verbose because English is not my first language, it's not intentional, I'm not trying to win anything, I'm just trying to convey my ideas. In a less serious tone though, the fucking gall to tell me that this is not a highschool debate right after repeating a phrase 4 times xD. Sorry, had to.
Anyway I think we are in agreement, thing is useful, maybe not the best idea to implement now, it can wait a bit. Have a good day.