this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
144 points (100.0% liked)
People Mastodon
393 readers
5 users here now
People tooting stuff. We allow toots from anyone and are platform agnostic (Mastodon, BlueSky, Twitter, Tumblr, FaceBook, Whatever)
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not about what the change is, it's about why the change is being made. Complying in advance with totalitarianism makes you a piece of shit.
okay but the change is being made (perhaps) so that websites can shove those disgusting identify verification apps everywhere
… so the response to that is to introduce user-controlled solutions like this that are technically compliant whilst circumventing the bad part about it
i’d argue it’s malicious compliance, or at worst like a cookie banner
I don't view age verification as totalitarianism. If they mandated it be done by submitting your photo ID to the government (or to a private "trusted" third-party), I might feel differently. But a law that permits a system like this, where age verification is done by parents setting the age of their child's accounts on the operating system, is not in and of itself totalitarian.
What part of "complying in advance" did you not understand?
If they were doing this on their own initiative because they genuinely thought it was a useful feature, that'd be one thing. But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that they are falling over themselves in their haste to signal political support for California's privacy-eroding, pearl-clutching bullshit.
What part of "it's not a bad thing" did you not understand?
"Don't comply in advance" is an instruction not to comply with bad things in an act of appeasement or to try to curry favour with the totalitarians. Complying with an actual well-intentioned policy is not "complying in advance" in the way that phrase is intended.
I dunno what's going on in California. To be quite honest I don't care what's going on in California, or anywhere in America, in this regard. The UK and my own country of Australia have introduced age verification laws recently. And to be frank, they're shit. Australia's law was rushed through Parliament with zero scrutiny and zero regard for the ramifications of the law.
And this feature? It would not comply with that law. Because our law actually requires some method of verification done by the sites themselves.
My interpretation of what's going on here is Linux would be showing the Australian government "hey look, we don't give a fuck what the law you wrote says because it's shit. We're doing something that achieves the outcomes you claim to want in a way that doesn't have the downsides of your shitty law."
I've been advocating for exactly what this guy did right here since November 2024, when the Australian government first pushed through its shitty law without regard for how the law actually worked. Because it's a good use of technology to achieve a well-meaning outcome, in a way that is well-considered rather than doing the laziest privacy-invasive method. If California has come up with a law that can be complied with in that way, I guess well done to them. I'm not changing my opinion on good policy just because someone I don't trust for unrelated reasons also agrees with it.
I reiterate: "complying in advance with totalitarianism makes you a piece of shit."
If you think any part of this is "well-intentioned," you are part of the problem. Be a better person.
And I reiterate, calling it totalitarianism is fucking bullshit.
Calling me a piece of shit is playing the man, not the ball, and that's fucking cunt behaviour. Be better.