this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2026
143 points (90.4% liked)
Technology
83150 readers
3422 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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
Oh wait, there aren't people chiming in to call me and others a fucking idiot and a stupid man child and all the other talking points for suggesting that the systemd merge was going to escalate?
Fascinating. I wonder where they all went. Maybe they're on the BSD forums now, but somehow I doubt it.
Sure I can chime in here.
You did actually read the post correct? Not just the title? The original poster, Jef, is talking about implementing a Unix socket or a dbus protocol similar to what apple already has. They are literally just referencing their definition for a struct.
So no this will not be ID verification, it won't ask for face scans, and it won't necessarily send the data anywhere.
The article is just using the big A word as some boogeyman to generate clicks and further rile up the community.
The systemd change is benign and this is not proof of your slippery slope theory.
Edit: I swear literacy rates in the linux community must be dropping.
I read it and just like the systemd merge, this isn't the end for this.
We can circle back when it turns into full blown identification standards though if its more comfortable for you to come to terms with the reality then.
Also, "won't necessarily send the data anywhere" isn't exactly comforting.
I just want to make sure that we do agree on a few things.
Given that, I think we can ultimately agree that the NY, UK, Germany, and I think also the Brazil laws are bad and cannot be fixed with simple updates to language.
So let's focus on the law's that do not require actual verification since that is what the systemd change cites.
What issues do you have outside of that they are poorly written and ineffective or that they are a slippery slope/frog in a pot/tip of the spear?
This is not about my comfort this is about what these laws actually require rather than some imaginary law that has not even been written yet.
I figured that someone might latch onto that "necessarily" and that's the great thing about open-source. If that distro/application/os does misuse your data then don't use it or fork it.
Oh no more people are talking about how to implement the least possible invasive version of age verification! Now they're referencing standards for it!
Yeah, some of us really don't want our home PCs directly contributing to the surveillance state, and we sure as hell don't appreciate pre-compliance to the demands of increasingly fascistic states.
Unless I'm mistaken everything being discussed here is still entirely within the context of your own system. Every date you put in is unverified and would only serve for something like parental control tools.
That would be covered by the
part.
That's cool but we don't want any which you seem to not understand.
That's cool, just lie? Like there's no verification process going on here, this is a field on your system that can be set to whatever you want which will empower parents to keep their children out of platforms like discord where they will be predated on, and can be completely ignored by users like me who do not have any reason to restrict my own system. But keep pitching a fit over this little bullshit instead of actual age verification policies that are going to require your face id, government id, etc for every platform you interface with.
EDIT: It really feels like you people just react to the headline and don't even read the article. One of the core points of their discussion in the first place is that the entitlements oriented approach to parental controls is better and that it seems that legislation is poorly informed for going after an age-centric approach in the first place. These people aren't the boogeyman trying to fuck over you and yours, they're contributors trying to figure out how to make their platforms better in the face of obligate compliance.
That's cool but we don't want any which you seem to not understand.