The latest changes implemented in the Systemd repo, related to or prompted by age-verification laws, have made many people unhappy (I suppose links about this aren't necessary). This has led to a surge in Systemd forks during the last days ("surge" because there have always been plenty of forks). Here are some forks that explicitly mention those changes as their reason for forking (rough time ordering taken from the fork page):
-
paramazo/systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager without age verification"
-
ganitam/systemd "Systemd fork just before the Age Verification addition. Hoping more capable developers and maintainers do same.."
-
GSYT-Productions/systemd-fork "The systemd System and Service Manager, without the stupid Age Verification"
-
speedythesnail/unret arded-systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager, without the ret arded age-verification commits"
-
ta13579/systemd "The systemd System and Service Manager WITHOUT THE FUCKING AGE CHECKS"
-
r4shsec/systemd-no-age-verification "This is systemd but without the age verification made via pull request https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40978"
-
Pingasmaster/fightthesystemd "Systemd without the nonsense: no age verification, no lighthouse built-in."
-
Jeffrey-Sardina/system "Liberated systemd -- no surveillance. Ever."
-
HaplessIdiot/systemd-saneagecheck "The systemd System and Service Manager with age verification bypass and polling rate options for said feature"
-
Queer-Coded-LGBTQ/systemd-fuck-california "The systemd System and Service Manager, but without age bs added in."
-
Codiak540/unshitted-systemd "A fork of systemd aiming to strip the Age verification. Sue me california."
Hopefully the energy of this reaction won't be scattered among too many alternatives, although some amount of scattering is always good.
It isn"t malicious compliance at all, it is just compliance. This is exactly what the law requires, to a T. Windows and MacOS would implement it in an identical way.
You want to act like this field is just being added for no reason, and not for compliance with a law that is being created as part of a fabric of increasingly authoritarian age assurance, age-based restriction laws and a rising tide of fascism. A slippery slope argument is where someone claims negative consequences without evidence, there is plenty of reason to believe the goal is de-anonymization.
What benefits would this feature add for you? How would it improve your computer? Why is it being added now and not at the same time as name and location which were added literal decades ago?
for me it adds nothing (like most userdb fields as i don't use them) but equally doesn't remove or compromise anything, userdb is optional
i'm absolutely not acting like it's being added for no reason, did you read my reply? it's being added (and i just wrote it) to maliciously comply with CA upcoming laws. you instead just acted like a optional field is the same as MS no-offline setup. "Windows would implement it in an identical way". do you even use linux?
you claim there's plenty of evidence and this is not a slippery slope because the goal is deanonymization. this is not how you prove to not be in a logical fallacy. "legalize gay marriage and they'll marry dogs", "oh i have plenty of evidence queer folks are against nuclear family". the second statement is true (per this queer folk) but it doesn't make the first less of a slippery slope.
Meta pushes for age verification? i believe that, not contested. systemd will violate privacy? this is the slippery slope. i know meta wants privacy violated. you're claiming that having an optional field is a dead giveaway systemd wants to let meta do this.
how? wouldn't systemd rely on meta services, or third party stuff like persona, to id you if they really wanted to make sure who you are? i see no api calls, i see no system lockdown when not complying, i see no data being sent away.
i see an optional field that nothing uses, that prevents nothing, that is strictly on your device.
you say it's "just" compliance, but how does it verify? if this is compliance with age verification, it sure lacks a lot of verification and seems to just be age. thus why this is malicious compliance: the bare minimum to be lawful and not compromise user privacy. seems desirable to me
Again, no, it is not malicious compliance. As per Tom's Hardware:
It is just compliance. Stop lying about that. The law itself is backed by Meta, Google and OpenAI. Wake the fuck up.
Anyways, stick your head in the sand if you want to, that's your prerogative, but don't say we didn't warn you. I've been arguing with people like you about increasing authoritarianism and fascism for decades, you always chirp about slippery slopes until it's already too late. How convenient.