Fuck off.
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
35 points (97.3% liked)
Linux
16518 readers
164 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Check it out there are already Linux distros specifically designed for classrooms and kids
https://endlessglobal.com/foundation/access/operating-system
Age declaration, not verification. I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't understand what the big uproar is. All it is is a way for mom and dad to mark an account as under aged.
If this didn't happen we would keep seeing more mandatory ID uploads and facial scanning. This is probably the best outcome we can hope for. They get to protect the children and we can keep using the internet.
The uproar is the same uproar that has always existed when government overreach threatens privacy. The question should never be, "why are you fighting this?" the question is, "why is this needed?" And the answer is that it is not. It's yet another mnaufactured moral panic which is being pushed by the folks who want to destroy privacy. Some want that destruction for the privacy so that they can spy on and control others, the rest are dimwitted fools who believe that they can give up privacy to obtain some small measure of security. They are wrong and in the end will have neither privacy nor security.
Day 1: Age declaration laws.
Then the public gets used to it. It becomes the norm.
Day 30: Age verification digital ID laws.
"But I don't have anything to hide!"
Society gets used to it.
Day 60: Always on live digital monitoring stream
"Well I'M not doing anything wrong, and it's to protect children"
Day 90: Always live camera video/audio feed inside your house.
"Well I don't have anything to hide! And it's to help find child predators."
Ect ect ect ect ect.
The thing to remember here is, they wouldn't bypass child protection COPPA laws to install age verification if it really was meant to protect children.
Also, YOU don't get to decide if you have nothing to worry about. YOU don't get to decide if you've done nothing wrong. That's for the fascists to decide. You won't know until it's too late.
See this is what we call the slippery slope argument. If things like that happen I will be up in arms with all of you. That's not what is happening though.
That is absolutely what has BEEN happening!
All throughout the 2010s there was a battle for net neutrality. We lost that fight.
Then they put in the scanners for TSA that take full body nude photos whenever you fly. You can "opt out", but they intentionally make it a hassle, and make it feel like YOU'RE the asshole for not wanting yourprivacy invaded like that.
Then all the appliances in your home started getting smart, so the internet was slowly becoming less of a luxery, and more of a requirement. Let an entire generation grow up without knowing a world without internet.
Then comes the tracking. We're entering this phase now.
And eventually you'll be isolated from society if you don't consent to being tracked.
I have never had a facebook account. Yet facebook knows my name, my face, my phone number, my address. All of this was never consented by me. You know who did consent to it? My mom. She put me in her contacts list on her phone. She willingly entered all that info, uploaded a photo, and saved it to her phones contacts. Then she downloaded the facebook app. Which promptly asked her if she'd like to import her contacts list into her facebook contacts.
And it's true that officially facebook isn't technically part of the government. However, these mega corporations are all in bed with the government. Whatever they want, under this corrupt fascist government, it's theirs for the taking. Nothing a little bribe can't solve.
And now you got ICE out on the streets, downloading databases of who they want to oppress, where they live, what they look like.
It's ALL connected. You are a frog slowly boiling. You don't think the water is hot because you keep getting used to the tempature increases.
What does your bridge inventory look like? I'd like to go over some proposals.
There is a difference between a theoretical slippery slope and a logical path to an obvious goal.
That's actually my point though, that some sort of this is going to happen no matter what. If you start at the assumption that they're not going to stop until they can verify that the children can't access porn, then working backwards this is the best way to accomplish that because it's privacy focused.
The option of refusing is not on the table. It's not going to happen. There can be holdouts, but it's happening whether you like it or not. The only real thing we can do is fight for a version which does handle our privacy, which this one does.
An operating system is not a tool for accessing porn.
To state that this is required for protecting children from porn or harmful content means there is an essential misunderstanding of what an operating system is.
When you say privacy, I say surveillance.
I will not be proving my identity in anyway to my computer. It's never happening whether you like it or not. I will fork an old Linux distro before I submit to that.
Your argument -- that this type of privacy intrusion is inevitable -- is also a full of various logical fallacies which i am not going to take the time to list.
Well great! Because no one is asking you to provide your identity. Both California and Colorado laws say that you only provide a birthdate (that you set) on a child's account. So, don't make a child's account?
Your argument is literally the slippery slope argument, so maybe we can agree that the whole topic is blown out of proportion.
- You are ignoring the premise that an operating system is not a tool for accessing porn.
- Details such as one's birthdate are absolutely part of your identity.
- There is no such thing as a "child" account in Linux.
- Who pays the open source developers to add this feature?
- Would it be against the law if a child uses
sudo?
- What possible legal consequences might there be?
- How would the state know that a user in compliance with the law?
- what are the consequences if a user or operating system is not in compliance?
- Is this data being recorded in a database?
- If they suspect you have a child using an "adult" account, does the state have the right to seize your computer?
- if a child uses an "adult" account to access "harmful" content and that somehow leads to damages, is there no ability to sue for those damages since the child was committing "fraud"?
- What if an adult is logged into an account and a child uses the computer while the adult is logged in?
The community's reaction is not "blown out of proportion". I'd say the reaction is actually not proportional enough.
I hate lists in comments, but fine.
- This is irrelevant, it doesn't matter how you use your computer
- They don't specify it has to be the user's exact birthdate. It can quite literally be anything the parent wants to put in there. In fact when you read the law, it says "Age brackets". The birthdate will not even be exposed in the API, only what bracket the user is in.
- Correct, which is why it has to be mandated.
- I supposed that's on each distro to decide? It's a mandate, they're not defining payroll.
- I read the laws for both CA and CO, it doesn't say, but it does say that above applications will listen to that and may block functionality if the account says they are underage. As for circumventing, I assume each distro will want to prevent that from being circumvented.
- What possible legal consequences might there be?
Up to $2,500 per affected child for negligent violations
Up to $7,500 per affected child for intentional violations
How would the state know that a user in compliance with the law?
They don't, there is no mandatory reporting, there is no "phone home" of compliance. It is only, and I mean only a boolean check in the OS, "Is the user a child or not".
What are the consequences if a user or operating system is not in compliance?
There is no section mentioning penalties for individuals entering false age information. You are completely free to submit whatever age you wish. This is 100% for parents to create a childs account.
Is this data being recorded in a database?
No. This is the largest bit of misinformation about these bills. There is no place where a database is created. It is literally an OS level signal that says "Child is under X age". A browser can check that signal, and if little Billie wants to see something adult related, the browser blocks it saying that they are under aged. It is still 100% opt in, there is no requirement for an OS to take an age, only that they must allow the option.
If they suspect you have a child using an “adult” account, does the state have the right to seize your computer?
NO. They have no idea! There is no tracking at all! Seriously. Read the law for yourself.
if a child uses an “adult” account to access “harmful” content and that somehow leads to damages, is there no ability to sue for those damages since the child was committing “fraud”?
NO. If the account is a default, normal adult account, all developers can trust that signal. "A developer that relies in good faith on a signal… is presumed to have accurately determined the user’s age and to be in compliance…"
What if an adult is logged in and a child uses the computer?
This is the only slightly ambiguous part, which CA at least knowledges is a gap, if there is a shared account. This law does not state anything about that, and only puts in place that a child should be able to create a child account. At this point the OS would say that the user is an adult, and would fire the signal that they are an adult, and from the other parts of the law there is no liability if the parent didn't set it up as a child's account.
Seriously. Please go read it yourself. I've been an open source advocate for a long time, and I'm a software engineer. Nothing in this law seems alarming to me. Annoying sure, but literally I can't think of a better more privacy friendly way to do this. It is quite literally only saying "You must have a way to create a child's account, so that the API is there for other apps to block access". It's literally just closing the giant loophole of "I'm totally over 21" that we all made fun of for years.
I credit Stallman with correctly being a zealot unwilling to give an inch on this topic for the last 30+ years. If he'd been the tiniest bit "realistic", we wouldn't have Linux or GNU coreutils or ad-free browsers.
Here's the deal: I paid for this computer, it is mine. I can make its logic gates do anything I want (back then there was no Internet so it couldn't reach out and hack/defraud someone else)
No matter what, it will be trivial to fork either Fedora installer or whatever to remove this. And because it's files that are freely given away, it's a lot harder to legally restrict than other consumer software.
No, age verification is not in inevitability. Neither is panopticon surveillance. We have the defensive shields.
I'm feeling the need to go a little more purist about open source these days. Every closed-source program lets you down in the end.
[+]
renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net
-8 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)
(3 children)
Yeah this is a way better alternative and no more invasive than a “I’m over 18” checkbox, it’s just done once on a OS user account rather than on every site.
I think all the age verification bullshit happening elsewhere is making people jump to angry conclusions rather than actually read the law.
EDIT: JFC the straw man arguments on this one are insane. I feel like people are intentionally misunderstanding how this functionality works because they’ve decided to be mad about it in advance.
Thanks but i don't need a fridge to question my age if i want to take beer out.
(not that you'd catch me eith a smart fridge in the first place, i am not insane)
The verbiage appears intentionally vague in the case of the Colorado law. It extends to literally anything with an OS, and the incentive for compliance is being allowed to spy on minors again.
Opinions are just vibes based. Age checks are bad vibes, so everyone hates anything to do with them no matter what.