this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
117 points (92.1% liked)

Linux

12966 readers
1100 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Add a required birth date prompt (YYYY-MM-DD) to the user creation flow, stored as a systemd userdb JSON drop-in at /etc/userdb/.user on the target system.

Motivation

Recent age verification laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc. require platforms to verify user age. Collecting birth date at install time ensures Arch Linux is compliant with these regulations.

This is just a pull request, no changes yet.

The pull-request discussion thread has been locked, just like it happened for the similar thread in Systemd, owing to the amount of negative comments...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

The thing that's frustrating is that if the age verification laws weren't there and they wanted to add a birthday field it wouldn't seem bad. Details about the human using the account like first and last name are already stored. All you really need is username. But because it's explicitly in reaction to age verification laws we have to be skeptical about adding it.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The timing makes me even more suspicious. Of all the times one could added this field, this is probably singularly the worst one. Right after discussions of mandatory age check? Seriously?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

You don't need to be suspicious, they're explicitly adding it because of that. They said as much. Look at what they wrote under "Motivation."

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I sort of get the feeling of something more than just complying with the possible future age verification law. I feel like it has intent do damage and distrupt the community.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago

I feel this law has the intent to damage and disrupt things in general, yes. Parental controls have existed for ages but lawmakers don't seem interested in them. For example, all the porn bans, rather than forcing sites to use some sort of self tagging system that parental controls could easily see (like some response header) they just want them to take IDs. All of it is a push to forcing people to always be online transparently with their real identity well known.

[–] khleedril@cyberplace.social 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

@JackbyDev @underscores Yes we do, because it is an erosion of our freedom.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 14 hours ago

You're saying that in a post age verification world though, my whole point is that if this were there before it wouldn't seem bad. I'm not saying we should add it now because it would've been fine before.