this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
271 points (90.9% liked)

Technology

83032 readers
4100 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 minute ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

I didn't realize age verification had been put in yet? holy shit tat was fast

[–] Samsy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

I'm not into this, but is it the nerd version of releasing forks and torches?

[–] favoredponcho@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago
[–] Charlxmagne@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Okay I've said this so many times but (open source) code is speech and thus protected by free speech laws. Also idk if anyone's noticed but it's pretty obvious ID verification is for mass surveillance and obbo purposes. Now why would this apply to software that we already know doesn't spy on you? Until now, proprietary software and big tech platforms already spied on you, but it could - to an extent be pseudonymised. This isn't about spying on people, they already do that, it's about removing pseudonymisation - instead of your data being stored under: User #2044820 it'll be your full govt name and address leaving no room for doubt or plausible deniability.

It is by every metric, useless to provide ID verification for software that collects no data, at best it would just give them a better idea of the demographic. Also it's literally open source, the GPL prohibits disallowing people from forking/editing it and it prohibits restrictions on the way in which it can be edited, which is legally binding.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 23 points 8 hours ago

There's no age verification in systemd. That field doesn't verify anything

[–] Tarambor@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Lots of tin foil hat wearing morons making mountains out of molehills. All that happened is a DOB field was put in so people can add their date of birth IF THEY CHOOSE TO so it can appear in their user account. It isn't uploaded to anyone, it's not checked by anyone, it is not mandatory to complete and you can leave the field blank.

[–] Fjdybank@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.

I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.

There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn't exist.

[–] goldman60@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I'm not really sure you can argue birthdate is the thin edge of the spear when the standard Linux user database already had fields for location, email, phone number, and real name. None of which have been used for anything up to this point, and systemd-homed is not as widely used.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago

We are more than mere frogs in a pot though. We have made note of this. We outraged. We argued and counter argued. We will not forget so easily, no matter the view point on it.

If nothing comes of it, some of us can say "I've told you..."

If the next step gets implemented and the field becomes mandatory, some of us can say "See!! Froggies"

If it becomes mandatory and a further implementation also adds the framework to submit the data to some idp service, then we can get the pitchforks out.

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

FUCK THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF STUPID USING LINUX

we wanted the year of the linux desktop... well the first raft of windows refugees seem to be a bunch of these privacy types who think they're now a bunch of 1337 h4x0rs because they figured out how to get an nvidia driver working on mint.... they have more paranoia than actual tech knowledge, and their only contribution to the community is sowing dissent, and shouting about something as trivial as an optional data field.

The debian subreddit is downvoting an actual DEBIAN DEVELOPER when they tried to explain the situation

If i put on my tin foil hat, i'd say these people are being deliberately influenced to sow chaos in foss communities

[–] Dathknight@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

This is bs ...

Instead of fighting the laws and the people behind it, 'we' (as in 'the community') infight about some minor commit?

If the reason is data privacy, why not also remove 'realName', 'emailAdress' and 'location'? 🙄

[–] nuxi@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago

They should also remove the phone number prompt that UNIX has had since before systemd even existed. Your phobe number is an optional part of the GECOS field and has been there for a very long time without anyone freaking out like this.

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 15 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

As far as I can tell the Name Email and location are all voluntarily provided by the user.

This is something that will be used whether you want it to or not (that makes it invasive) because of the laws around it (of course depending on where you are).

Having fields I can ignore as a user isn't the same as this guided attempt by lawmakers to eventually get you to give ID and retina scans just to use a computer.

This is step 1. That is why people are freaking out about it.

And I know systemd isn't doing this out of spite, but I do wish the scene would stand up for the user more... Just say no California or whatever other shit place decides to enact that and boom problem solved. Not their fault or problem anymore.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

As far as I can tell the Name Email and location are all voluntarily provided by the user.

So is birthDate.

This is something that will be used whether you want it to or not (that makes it invasive) because of the laws around it (of course depending on where you are).

How? First and most importantly, systemd doesn't do anything to enforce, require or verify the field.

Second, I control what is installed on my PC, that's the ENTIRE POINT of using a FOSS OS. The FREEDOM to install whatever I want, or not. If there is an application that is using that field to enforce some bs law, then I simply won't install it.

This isn't Windows, there isn't a Microsoft to force you to install software updates that you don't want. You're FREE to not install software that does things that you don't like. This includes any hypothetical future software that would require this field or validate this field.

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You control what you install on your pc and I'd be willing to bet that whatever open source OS it is, probably uses Systemd. Unless you're a Unix person.

They have set this up in a way that yes, right now at 11:21pm UTC on March 24th it isn't being enforced or required.

But because of the replies of some of the maintainers in their github about this very merge they are suggesting that as soon as it becomes hard law, it will be enforced by them.

Particularly the part where one was replying to a system76 developer who mentioned that they are in talks with state legislators right now, that these proposed laws are very possibly going to be overturned, and that open source software might not even be required to do this at all and that we should give it more tim before we do something like this and the reply was:

"It is possible that California law will be changed. But similar ideas are popping up in other contexts and it's unlikely that they'll all go away. This implementation is fairly generic and useful for other things besides age verification, so we shouldn't decide whether to merge it or not based on a single law in any jurisdiction."

This suggests that they are doing this because of laws and ideas like this that are coming into play. And that they didn't want to wait on the confirmation of whether it was law or not, they did it anyway. Why? That's not very open. That isn't really taking a stand to support Linux or its users that is voluntarily getting ahead of the control mechanism that "similar ideas" are going to use.

They shouldn't have done this. In mine, and many, many other peoples opinions as well.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You control what you install on your pc and I’d be willing to bet that whatever open source OS it is, probably uses Systemd.

They have set this up in a way that yes, right now at 11:21pm UTC on March 24th it isn’t being enforced or required.

It is using systemd, yes. It could be using openRC, sysvinit, runit, etc just as easily.

Systemd isn't a requirement for Linux. It is simply the most useful init system currently. If that ever stops being the case then changing init systems or entire even distros is a fairly trivial task. If systemd were ever to require me to submit to a 3rd party verification of my age I'd just use a different init system.

There is nothing that any open source project can do that would force me to keep using their software if I don't want to.

They shouldn’t have done this. In mine, and many, many other peoples opinions as well.

If your opinion represents a large group of people then you should have no trouble maintaining a fork.

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

You are right on that.

I hope that in the end this does end up all working out and I was just one of the crazy guys worried for no reason.

But either way I still think it is disappointing they did this so quickly and that they're using a US push in law be such a deciding factor in originally pushing for it. It felt like that was the same way when they banned Russian maintainers. The USA and especially specific states shouldn't have this much pull especially over open source community driven projects in my opinion.

[–] themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

I think these laws will be similar to prohibition. They will try for a while, but then realize they can't succeed. Governments can't even handle cyber security, how will they handle this?

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

These laws are made by corporation like FB who wish to shift the blame away from itself for their transgressions. Australian and EU laws are banning social media for pre teens and kids. So instead of them developing ways to follow that law they are shifting that onus on to the operating system.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Quazatron@lemmy.world 55 points 22 hours ago (5 children)
  1. Fork a project that you have a problem with;
  2. Write a strong worded manifesto;
  3. Revel in those sweet sweet internet clicks;
  4. Try to gather a team of seasoned engineers to keep and evolve the project;
  5. Most likely fail, look for the next controversy, repeat.
[–] fluxx@mander.xyz 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, but what's wrong with this? If you gather engineers that are capable to maintain it - what is the downside? Systemd could always have used a bit of competition, I think most of us can agree. Most of the forks of systemd will fail, but most of all projects fail after some time. I don't think this situation will harm systemd ultimately and it shouldn't.

[–] Quazatron@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

There's nothing wrong with forking a project, IF you can and intend to maintain it -- hell, that's the whole basis of FOSS.

Forking it to make a point with no intention to maintaining it is just an easy way to gather clicks and stir drama.

IMHO the effort is better spent fighting the politicians that are shoving this down our throats, or should we fork all the tech that gets affected by bad political decisions?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Blemgo@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago (9 children)

I find that move extremely funny, since it's purely made for sensationalism and nothing else. I mean, if you hate how systems implemented age verification, then why don't you remove its identity verification too, i.e. also optional fields for stuff like your address an e-mail that most users don't even fill out.

There is no mechanism verifying what birth date you type in - you can type whatever date you want and systems doesn't care.

I'd say no matter where you stand with age verification, this is the best solution to handle the situation. After all, any and all age checks we have nowadays are a black box anyways. There is no real knowing how other systems are checking ages, and there is AFAIK no real government mandated rules on how it is verified. They could make you scan your ID's front, back, nuclear composition and dietary preferences and give you a result that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a proper age verification procedure.

If the government wants to introduce age verification, they have to do it themselves - build an API that handles the age verification, similar to how the digital ID in Germany works, as an example. If they want proper age verification, they also have to take the blame themselves if things go wrong.

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 10 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

You know I remember when age verification was a thing on porn sites.

No big deal, I was like 12 and could easily say "yupp, I was born April 20th, 1969" and there was no problem.

Now, in several states that has escalated to you showing your ID.

Do you think this is the end game? Systemd made it clear with this move that any kind of US law passed will be able to be honored by their architecture. They didn't take a stand that you would expect from pretty much the entire Linux community as a whole.

And see the funny part is where you talk about "if the government wants age verification they have to do it themselves" they pretty much do in USA its called your social security number. Banks, auto dealerships, landlords etc use it all the time and its very effective.

By not taking a strong stance against what is happening here you are paving the road brick by brick to having to provide full on SSN and very plausibly retina scans or something similar in the not so distant future before you can even login to your computer or phone.

I don't understand, how people here are missing that. Fuck we are on Lemmy because we see how shit worked with things like reddit and others. Things always escalate when control and greed are the primary motivators.

This will escalate. And when it does I want you to remember that people were rightfully making a HUGE FUCKING DEAL about when systemd started doing this because by then you will be able to see clearly how it led to whatever surveillance wet dream they are absolutely going to force on us. It will be clear, and this will be step 1 .

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours ago

This. And forking is easy. Maintaining a big piece of software is not. This is why every popular repo has hundreds of forks, but non of them are active or in sync with upstream.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 1 day ago (11 children)

My line in the sand is when a distro/app starts enforcing entry of birth date data. Having a database field to store it, or even an optional prompt for it isn't the point where I bin it.

[–] belazor@lemmy.zip 27 points 23 hours ago

This is the most sane take I’ve read in this entire debacle. Between arguing the semantics of attestation vs verification and whether we need five hundred forks and PRs, I’m glad to read this.

The biggest mistake the original PR did was not make it more clear it’s not directly because of the laws themselves, it’s to support higher level systems that may want to or need to comply. Systemd is no more complying with any present or future laws than a keyboard manufacturer is violating the law if the user uses it to type racially motivated hate speech.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ieGod@lemmy.zip 3 points 15 hours ago

Yup. All this crying about the field is a big nothing burger.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 17 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Lots did. There are about a dotzend forks for this explicit purpose.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

And in a month none will be active at all.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 15 points 21 hours ago

I can see it's just an optional text field but the ick isn't optional. It's leaning towards submission in comparison to resistance. I'm hoping such laws get repealed, rather than spread.

[–] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (22 children)

None of the id fields in the systemd db are required to be filled. This is useless. Simply don't put any personal info in, and bam, you're already liberated, from laws that aren't even in effect yet!

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

This is perfectly logical and I agree. Except that this controversy has prompted me to go learn about Lennart Poettering. I've been using systemd forever and I like it - I like journald and remote journald, I like networkd, I even deleted cron off my systems and use systemd timers exclusively. I knew there was some controversy about Lennart, but I didn't really care. Now that I've read a bit about his background and, maybe more importantly, his new company - I don't have a good feeling for the future of systemd.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] webkitten@piefed.social 4 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

They literally just added a field in the JSON schema to support a birth date field which is completely optional and has no relevance on the project. People are so dumb.

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 9 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Well yeah, right now it is optional.

What about when the law passes that says it's required on a federal level (yes I'm talking about USA). They added this one in pretty quick, do you think they would fold and be like "nah we stand for the users!"

Or do you think they will build on what is already being added here?

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

This is why it's so important to ensure that the USA continues its slide to irrevelance.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›