top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 215 points 5 months ago (27 children)

“It’s just a harmless field; what’s the big deal?”

The big deal is that it’s on the heels of age verification bullshit that fascists are pushing through with the help of tech bros, so that they can eventually push all of us into a scenario where we have zero privacy.

It’s not the adding of the field itself or the fact that it can be filled with nonsense. It’s the reasoning backing it.

“But it’s the law!”

Yeah, fucking and…? It’s a stupid mass surveillance law disguised as a protection, and per usual, it’s written like vague dog shit. This is the smallest part of the wedge. More will come of this and if developers like this keep volunteering themselves to help the fascists, we will all be fucked. Here’s an alternative approach: just don’t add this. You can fight back by not fucking implementing this. Easy.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Twenty Lessons For Fighting Tyranny

    1. Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

    https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/twenty-lessons-fighting-tyranny/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago

    Also, they will use it as a means to lock content they don't want. Like in some jurisdictions it's already forbidden to share any kind of LGBTQ information even medical with minors.. Even in EU, like Hungary. Clearly this age verification will be used for this too. And people not willing to age verify will be locked out too.

    It's part of their campaign of forcing conservative 'values' onto everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (20 replies)
    [–] 82 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Then he said Arch Linux should implement it anyway because the law requires it. archinstall PR #4290

    Well, it's not "the law", it's your local law. To most people on the planet, it doesn't apply any more than for example North Korea's laws. As far as I can find, Arch Linux is not owned by a foundation or similar legal entity (i.e. which could have been located in California), but the lead developer appears to live in Germany.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 78 points 5 months ago* (45 children)

    to all y'all with the "it's just a text field": what if the field is "race"? "sexual orientation"? "jerks_off_to"? what the fuck has a system managing daemon got to do with any of that? and why would you preemptively put it in there without even a pretense of a fight?

    fuck you make us! make linux illegal, in Cali of all places. guess how long that will last?

  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • load more comments (45 replies)
    [–] 62 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    2000s: war on general purpose computing because of copyright

    2020s: war on general purpose computing because of child protection

    In the 2000s the forces of freedom mostly won, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act didn't become law. So far it seems that we are currently losing. :(

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 56 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
    [–] 52 points 5 months ago (32 children)

    I have read the git thread related to the merge request.

    I don't see what's the big deal. You have a user model that already contain fields like user's full name, location, ... among others and all this developer did was adding yet another optional field called date of birth.

    This does nothing to verify user's age and enforce nothing. They've stressed that repeatedly in the comments.

    What that does is making it easy for a Linux distro to store user's birthday - should they wish to do so - and making that bit of info accessible to running apps so that each app can do what it wants with it.

    User's fullname and location are already there which are also optional so what's the big deal?

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    Then why did they lock the fucking thread as controversial if it was such an innocent change?

    It's paving the wave to implement a Californian law that can very easily end up meaning ID verification for everything.

    They could just not have done this at zero cost but decide to go to multiple projects, at this specific time which obviously isn't coincidental, and actively work to start implementing this on Linux. I guess "Contributed to systemd" on their CV was more valuable than resisting the USA taking control of the whole internet and ending all sense of privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Fields like name and location do not have any expectation for the information being valid or accurate (see eg.: adduser).

    DOB is different. It comes from a legal expectation that correctness of the information will be enforced somehow. If going by the Colorado and NY law proposals, IIRC, by using biometrics at the time of system install.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 45 points 5 months ago (21 children)

    What a pointless drama article this is. FLOSS software does stuff for legal compliance more often than you'd think. The whole point is people can contribute fly by patches and the maintainers make the decision to merge. It seems like being an optional field but potentially providing useful functionality is enough for systemd. If you don't like it I'm sure there are forks you could join or even use a different init system. No one's freedom is being oppressed here.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 43 points 5 months ago (24 children)

    Lots of disingenuous comments in this thread regarding the change being "just json" considering they're already on a warpath of implementing id verification. They are testing the water to see what they can get away with. Furthermore, the Linux community has always been against shit like this (see: systemd outrage, open bios, gnu etc).

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • load more comments (24 replies)
    [–] 43 points 5 months ago (3 children)
    load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 37 points 5 months ago

    Dylan is a lowlife fucking looser

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 5 months ago* (27 children)

    I disagree with age verification as well, but attacking a person like this is gross.

    This article is all but brigading people into harassing this guy.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    A spade's a spade. This is malicious compliance. The law might be the problem here but it's on us to resist and try to make a change. Every last one of us. After all, the surveillance state workers in China and Russia are all just doing their jobs right?

    Why the heck would we ever want a DoB field in systemd, optional or otherwise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (19 replies)
    [–] 37 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Petition to name the inevitable fork of this "SystemFree"

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 35 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nobody paid him to do this. He's a cloud engineer who read the law and decided someone needed to implement it.

    Well, how do you know that?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 34 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I still don't understand why it needs to be implemented as part of systemd, and not - say - as a service. Or, if we want to "go with" the law - make it a kernel module, which sounds more impressive ("we are complying at the kernel level!") but in practice so much easier to opt out of.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    I don't see what's wrong with implementing it as an add-on to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecos_field as the PR in question does. It's the most logical place as the location to store user information and is even easier to opt out of—you just edit a file—than choosing whether to compile Linux with/add to DKMS a kernel module.

    Edit: One can see https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/8878df45c1a58afdfb500fdc53ec50e057a240ce/docs/USER_RECORD_BLOB_DIRS.md?plain=1#L103 for an example of a user record file and its path. Further documentation you can read at https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/8878df45c1a58afdfb500fdc53ec50e057a240ce/man/systemd-userdbd.service.xml#L36 and https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/8878df45c1a58afdfb500fdc53ec50e057a240ce/docs/USER_RECORD.md .

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    He didn't just try. He succeeded in doing so. His pull request was merged into systemd and will land into your distro eventually (if it is systemd-based).

    There are distros free of systemd, like Devuan, based on Debian.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 31 points 5 months ago

    Fucking bootlicker

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago

    Ah the great betrayer. The snake in the garden. The enemy within the gates. That fucking cunt.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Is there an Arch fork that is not implementing this shit or do I have to go non systemd now? Because this BS is not going on any of my machines.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 24 points 5 months ago (23 children)

    Genuine question, don’t we always say that we can change anything in the system on open source software like Linux and systemd etc? What’s stopping any of us from removing this age verification thing? Apps may break, true, but I’m sure there will be many one line scripts that replace that age verification with something that feeds it fake data?

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›