this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026

200 points (78.6% liked)

linuxmemes

30963 readers

987 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 sudo in 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. 🇬🇧 Language/язык/Sprache

This is primarily an English-speaking community. 🇬🇧🇦🇺🇺🇸

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.

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

poopsmith@lemmy.world

zephyr@lemmy.world

rtxn@lemmy.world

200

You guys fell for memebait (quokk.au)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by Deceptichum@quokk.au to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 72 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

How is a field you can introduce used to verify anything? There's no "verification" if you choose to put whatever you want.

Or what, do you consider the field that shows up when clicking some games on steam where you just scroll the year 40 down and click whatever, age "verification"? Cuz it isn't.

Having a date field so that parents can define their kids' age in for non root accounts on Linux so the system, in a potential future, automatically limits access to some stuff is useful, and yet there's no age verification being done there, besides the parents themselves knowing that what they inputted is truthful.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 29 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

They literally said it's to address the laws in the PR.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

It's one step toward addressing the laws, but systemd isn't going to implement the remaining steps to have actual age verification.

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

Just one little aoldier following orders. There are definitely not copious numbers of examples of that going poorly...

[–] garbage_world@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

But they did what the laws (Californian, Colorado's and basically every other, except for the New York's and Texan) required them to do.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

And then expand in the further discussion that the field has further use besides compliance, and that even if it complies that a field that you can control whenever is not real verification. Please don't be a headline Andy. I've also been one, but if I'm to dive in comments and write about it I usually give it a read, specially if I reference the content of the post.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] fafferlicious@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

Because it will not be enough.

Because they will come back and say "look at this loophole"

"Think of the children" you'll all say as you agree to give your government authority to determine what information you can or cannot access as "age appropriate" completely ignorant of what you're handing over.

This would be fine if it was just for you, but you're trying to give my control over my system and what I can access away from me because you're too short-sighted to see what comes after volunteer age reporting. And when that still doesn't save the children, which it won't, because it is NEVER ABOUT THE FUCKING CHILDREN ITS ALWAYS ABOUT CONTROL, you'll tell me again that it's just another little minor infraction. It's just a little bit more than volunteer reporting.

Afterall, won't someone please think of the children?!

[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

To actually verify, need not able modify after verify by id or similar.

But root always able to modify. So cannot work.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] jaredwhite@humansare.social 61 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

This is getting really old, really damn fast. 🫩

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 58 points 2 weeks ago

Luckiky we can track that now!

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 42 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Well it’s only going to get worse as more states start pushing for it.

We can either make a stand and kick up a fuss now or lose a free internet🫩

[–] jaredwhite@humansare.social 19 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe…I misinterpreted your post. I think I'm on your side actually 😄

Absolutely against the DoB addition, yep.

[–] Haaveilija@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

And so are the users, according to the age verification field

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It can't actually be used to verify anything. As implemented, it just reports whatever you entered. It's just as valid as those birthday fields on websites that cater to users that share a 1st of January birthday.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 weeks ago

I think we all know where we are headed

[–] M1k3y@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 weeks ago

The best kind of age verification

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It is not age verification

It could be used as part of a age verification system but it isn't by itself age verification. You are doing the equivalent of calling a set of tires a car.

[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you also feel compelled to provide your true name on the "user name" field?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

And it can be used to verify how old you are.

How?

This is the part I’m hung up on. What actually physically happens to make me enter my real birthday in the systemd user field, and verify it’s actually my birthday?

January 1 1900 has been my official online birthday forever.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I was born on January 1st, whichever year before 2000 that I first click on.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I guess the idea is that your parents store the date and you don't get root access (or you store the date for your kids and don't give them root access).

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Name: Biggus Dickus DOB: 06/09/1969

[–] patxi@mastodon.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

@mazzilius_marsti @Deceptichum
OMG! I've been dox'd, I feel so naked...

[–] zebidiah@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

I think I went to highschool with your wife....

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Boring dystopia :(

[–] db2@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

You want the exciting kind? We aren't the ones it's fun for.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 11 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, thats not age verification...

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Its only age verification if you set it up.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not even that

There is no verification what so ever. If anything it might be an age check

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

My dog could make an account if he could just enter a birthday.

It's the verification part of age verification that is the issue.

[–] gegil@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Can i not use age verification in systemd if i dont live in usa?

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You can even not use it if you live in the US. There's nothing that enforces you put a date in there (and nothing to verify if it's correct, which is why people say it's not age verification).

[–] ttyybb@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

For now. Let's not pretend this doesn't lay groundwork for goverment to require id verification.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

were we not dealing with fascism i would not mind this, i'd think it was just part of a functional digital ID environment. that's part of the problem. is it that i need to reconceptualize the digital ID or idk.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] smeg@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

required = yes

Easy to flag. Then Lennart Poettering's startup van deploy the ID tech to comply with age verification laws.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

As long as I'm root in Linux there's nothing that can be done about me doing whatever I want with that field. I'll be born in 420-6-9, name "blaze" surname "it".

That's the difference between windows and Linux. In Linux I'm truly root, the I do control everything in it, sometimes to my detriment, but definitely in my benefit in these occasions.

Also, anything the Spanish government wants to protect, is as easy as forcing us to use a free to emit electronic certificate that personally identifies us, which is already used to enter public services webpages in a secure way.

That age thing is actually way more useful that proper bullshit age verification, because parents, actual parents, can set a user account for their kids on the PC, and then that field would actually be valuable to limit access to tools. You know, instead of surrendering power to the government, which this tool doesn't do, you would be giving power to parents to be proactive in protecting their kids.

Isn't that one of the most prominent talking points against mas surveillance based kid protection? Of which I completely agree, about giving tools and power to parents so they can better cater the exposure of their kids, without surrendering control, I mean.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yes

And even if you do live there.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How does it verify anything if it's not proven in any way?

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 weeks ago

It doesn't verify how old you are, it verified that you entered a certain set of numbers at some point.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

question: do california, colorado, or brazil's laws have any teeth?

what is the penalty if i lie? (a) and am an adult? (b) and am a minor? [i don't really care but for completeness sake]

also, you know those websites that ask for your age so you can see the vidya trailers? will this bypass that so i can just see the redband or am i going to have to put in 1/1/1970 TWICE GODSDAMMIT

[–] garbage_world@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Only penalty in this law is for OS makers that didn't include such rules in the OS, paying per affected child.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 6 points 2 weeks ago

Systemd has a field which could be used to store age, which a system which has age verification could use to store the age.

Just like the system which performs age verification could store that information in a file.

I guess ext4 is age verification as it allows storing age of birth.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago

We have different concepts on what "verified" data is.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

picking november 5 1955 because it's a fixed point in time

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

01/01/1900

Because I like chaos.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] emotional_soup_88@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago

Raise your hand if you have supplied your mail address to your installation of git^[Couldn't think of a better example right now, but seriously: JUST DON'T SUPPLY YOUR AGE.].

...

I hope people will be this persistent in protesting when apps start requiring actual verification.

load more comments