Name: Biggus Dickus DOB: 06/09/1969
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
159 points (78.9% liked)
linuxmemes
30723 readers
1762 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
I think I went to highschool with your wife....
Yeah, thats not age verification...
Didn't they shitcan the age verification thing in systemd and they fire the guy who put it in? Or was that just a joke post?
It is not age verification
It could be used as part of a age verification system but it isn't by itself age verification. You are doing the equivalent of calling a set of tires a car.
And it can be used to verify how old you are.
How?
This is the part Iβm hung up on. What actually physically happens to make me enter my real birthday in the systemd user field, and verify itβs actually my birthday?
January 1 1900 has been my official online birthday forever.
I guess the idea is that your parents store the date and you don't get root access (or you store the date for your kids and don't give them root access).
I was born on January 1st, whichever year before 2000 that I first click on.
Right? I'm not scrolling that far down. Somewhere within the last 18 years is good enough.
within??
I'm a dog on the Internet.
If I say I'm 10 I'm actually 77 and to suggest otherwise is discrimination.
How does it verify anything if it's not proven in any way?
It doesn't verify how old you are, it verified that you entered a certain set of numbers at some point.
Raise your hand if you have supplied your mail address to your installation of git^[Couldn't think of a better example right now, but seriously: JUST DON'T SUPPLY YOUR AGE.].
...
I hope people will be this persistent in protesting when apps start requiring actual verification.
It can't actually be used to verify anything. As implemented, it just reports whatever you entered. It's just as valid as those birthday fields on websites that cater to users that share a 1st of January birthday.
I think we all know where we are headed
The best kind of age verification
Its only age verification if you set it up.
Not even that
There is no verification what so ever. If anything it might be an age check
My dog could make an account if he could just enter a birthday.
It's the verification part of age verification that is the issue.
Do you also feel compelled to provide your true name on the "user name" field?
Do and I'm tired of pretending I don't
How is a field you can introduce used to verify anything? There's no "verification" if you choose to put whatever you want.
Or what, do you consider the field that shows up when clicking some games on steam where you just scroll the year 40 down and click whatever, age "verification"? Cuz it isn't.
Having a date field so that parents can define their kids' age in for non root accounts on Linux so the system, in a potential future, automatically limits access to some stuff is useful, and yet there's no age verification being done there, besides the parents themselves knowing that what they inputted is truthful.
They literally said it's to address the laws in the PR.
systemd: "Yeah sure, here you go, some integers maybe. Could just be some zeroes, who cares, not me"
bunch of lazy reaction-baited dummies: "it's age verification!"
It's one step toward addressing the laws, but systemd isn't going to implement the remaining steps to have actual age verification.
Just one little aoldier following orders. There are definitely not copious numbers of examples of that going poorly...
But they did what the laws (Californian, Colorado's and basically every other, except for the New York's and Texan) required them to do.
And then expand in the further discussion that the field has further use besides compliance, and that even if it complies that a field that you can control whenever is not real verification. Please don't be a headline Andy. I've also been one, but if I'm to dive in comments and write about it I usually give it a read, specially if I reference the content of the post.
I'm not a headline Andy. They literally said, in the PR, that it was also to address these laws. It is not a slippery slope fallacy when they're citing it as a reason. It's part of the fucking motivation. It's part of the reason it exists in the first place.
Just because you are too young/naive to understand how this kind of shit turns over in the real world, and/or too illiterate to read PR comments, doesn't magically make all the people upset about it alarmists.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
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.
Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26- 051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.
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.
Who is pushing for this?
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
question: do california, colorado, or brazil's laws have any teeth?
what is the penalty if i lie? (a) and am an adult? (b) and am a minor? [i don't really care but for completeness sake]
also, you know those websites that ask for your age so you can see the vidya trailers? will this bypass that so i can just see the redband or am i going to have to put in 1/1/1970 TWICE GODSDAMMIT
I better question in terms of the teeth of the laws is, are there any real consequences to an operating system provider just ignoring them and not providing any kind of age verification in their software whatsoever?
The question I assume will get answered soon enough by GrapheneOS since they have told everyone asking for OS age verification to go pound sand.
Only penalty in this law is for OS makers that didn't include such rules in the OS, paying per affected child.
and who is the os maker..??
In my head, your first word sounded like Dwight Schrute
It hasn't passed in Colorado
yeah and? the law still exists in some form. you can go look it up. y'all are the ones whining about this stuff i don't really care
view more: next βΊ