this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
218 points (71.3% liked)
linuxmemes
30735 readers
1515 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
systemd is introducing birthDate as a user json field, if that's what you mean with rumor.
The PR to revert that change was not merged:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/41179
It was added with a note specifically that the implementation was related to a law that was described as stupid.
I think it's pretty clear exactly what this was being put in for, and why two MSFT devs were ready to approve.
There's no "it was just..." about this, it was step one of a coordinated plan that has not been abandoned.
Poettering doesn't work for Microsoft.
The approver of the pull request does...
I agree, your point?
Poettering only very recently left microslop
Yes, that's another way of saying what I said...
Next the OS will have to verify this is correct
Be like grapheneos and say no to age verification
That is (or is not) happening regardless of systemd involvement. This is just a place to store the value. Not having such a place in systemd would just mean it is stored in some other place. This doesn't make it significantly easier to implement age verification nor would reverting it make it significantly harder. It's just a field that may be used by people who are legally obligated to store or read that data.
Every rant about systemd is a wasted opportunity to yell at someone who deserves it, honestly. Focus on the people pushing age verification laws or doing age verification.
It's another domino fallen, another step towards absolute control
I don't think that's a reasonable assessment of this change
So apps can look at it and verify the users age? π€
"Verify" is a strong word, if the age in there isn't actually verified. If I say my realName is Nunya Bissnis, my location is Atlantis and my birthDate is 1970-01-01, who's going to check if that's at all accurate?
Doesn't matter if it's accurate. Now they have more unique data points to help track your digital footprint.
It's really a declaration, or an assertion.
If someone populates it and if apps do it. The "debate" is whether this is something systemd should or should not have done.
It is not something systemd needs. The platform requesting age needs to get it directly from the user.
i am told by a very reliable dipshit that everything in this thread is maga disinformation
Eh, this would make it 100% useless though.
I think it's fairly reasonable for adults to want to ensure a 10-year-old doesn't get mental health issues by being served hardcore BDSM porn unsupervised, or get scammed by a pig butcher on social media. Of course a curious 10-year-old can't be trusted to enter their real birth date. So, adding this info to a root-managed userdb kinda makes sense. At this point there's nothing to suggest that this age will be verified in any way, other than "the person entering it has write access to userdb". So in the current form it's just another tool for parents to control what their child sees (provided any apps actually use this field in the future).
However, I'd argue just the birth date is the wrong approach to this and it needs to be more granular.
The requirement to check age is on the provider. It is not the responsibility of the OS to store age and supply it freely to any service that wants it.
This data is stored as a non-privileged birth date.
This means any website can ask for your birth date. Then they store it, and use it for tracking. Private browser? HAH! Not your birth date!
This has N O T H I N G to do with βchildren.β Itβs about Meta trying to escape moderation responsibility.
This is the right wing talking. Slowly putting identity into the OS for tracking. Donβt fall for it (unless youβre the right wing, and then fuck you)
Well, if you're going that route, there are a whole bunch of other issues (apart from absolving parents from responsibility for their kids digital wellbeing). Either the provider just asks the user for their age (which is what we're doing now, and it's just 100% useless), or there would have to be some way to prove one's age. Presumably it would be via a government-issued token of some kind, ideally as a ZK proof. While there are some european countries where this is somewhat feasible, for most of the world issuing every resident a smartcard which can attest if one is an adult or not is just not possible. So, you'd be forced to either give out gov-signed certificates of age as files (which will be easily reused by kids to access stuff which they shouldn't), or you have a centralized server which can issue time-limited certificates on the fly based on some ID (which will tell the government that you wanna watch adult stuff), or you just have to upload your ID to the provider directly (I hope I don't need to explain why this is bad).
Meanwhile, what we are discussing right now is just a basic extension to parental controls. Notice how the field is not mandatory, you can just leave it empty, and I'd argue everyone who doesn't have kids should just do that. As it is implemented right now, the machine administrator decides if they want to use this or not and what to set the date to. Even if some distro complies with the stupid law and make it mandatory in california (which I'd argue they shouldn't), you can just enter 1970-01-01 and be done with it, because you decide what to put in that field during account creation.
Well, first of all, for now browsers don't even support reading userdb at all, and there's no way for website to request it. Then, I hope when it is implemented it will be hidden behind a website permission so that kids can decide if they want to share it or not (i.e. "this website wants to know you age: allow/deny"). For adults (if the california law gets implemented), I hope that "privacy" browsers will have a feature to return a random date (more than 18 years ago) every time if the field is not set in userdb, or you can just write a cronjob/systemd-timer that changes the date randomly every hour.
There is a question of random apps now having unfettered access to your child's birthday. This is indeed an issue, and poettering's approach of "just containerize it" is not very cool. It would be nice to have a way to gate userdb access behind a user prompt, similar to what I'm describing for browsers. I guess for now flatpaking everything you don't 100% trust not to read userdb is the only option.
What drugs are you on?
None, sadly.
Hug
I only mean the verification is clearly in the app that uses it then.