this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
107 points (92.1% liked)

Linux

12907 readers
864 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
Ategon@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev
107
Systemd’s New Feature Brings Age Verification Option to Linux (itsfoss.com)
submitted 2 days ago by other_cat@piefed.zip to c/linux@programming.dev
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The optional birthDate field gives other projects a standardized data source for age verification compliance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yep. Its honestly mild as hell.

Essentially legislation that says:

  • app stores have to have age categories to silo children, teens, and adults.
  • OSes have to have a field to collect this data from users when they set up their login, so it can be sent to app stores via API.

Its just a standardized system that should have been done ages ago, but was not a priority for standards orgs, so none stepped up - so legislation appeared.

I strongly argue that it should only apply to commercial OSes and app stores though - as they're the ones that primarily cause issues these laws intent to address.

Linux and FOSS have been caught in the crossfire in a privacy and personal data battle they were not involved in.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 17 points 2 days ago

The legislation is entirely to allow Facebook to get away with harming minors, so I wouldn’t call it mild in any sense of the word.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The boiling pot goes up 1C, then another 1C

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

nope. slippery slope is basically “bad thing can happen, so it will happen” without evidence to support that outcome. here, we have a trajectory. there’s a pattern. it has momentum at this point. it hasn’t changed corse. it’s followed a predictable and proven pattern. It’s done so because the the pressures exerted on this particular system guide the outcome in predictable ways.

that is entirely different than the slippery slope dismissal

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

No, entirely incorrect. "bad thing can happen, so it will happen" is essentially a mangling of Murphy's Law.

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected [eg: this minor law] because the slippery slope advocate believes it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends [eg: loose claims of a pot getting hotter implying further details will be demanded next].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[–] Pinguini@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

More "thin end of the wedge".