this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
638 points (91.5% liked)

Technology

84105 readers
3873 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
[–] Blemgo@lemmy.world 150 points 1 month ago (6 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.

[–] ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone 95 points 1 month ago (4 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 45 points 1 month 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.

[–] magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Good distros will push default a dob of 1970-1-1, mark my fucking words.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Bloefz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I would but I've always been opposed to systemd anyway.

But for me it's a slippery slope I don't think we should even get on.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 month 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)
[–] fluxx@mander.xyz 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I agree with all that you've said. But why add it now? Why haven't they added it a long time ago? Or if now they remembered, why not other extra optional fields that some people might want, like gender, sex, any other field? Oh, it would be too political? I see...

[–] GreatBlueHeron@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm thinking the same. I understand the people saying it's no big deal, it's just an optional field. But the existing optional fields (GECOS) have been there since the beginning of time. The original Unix user database (/etc/passwd) was created in a different time. Things have changed in the last 50 years and we now know that a simple field in an OS level database is not really an appropriate place to store PII. I don't know what the solution is, as these laws are coming and there will be some people that need to comply, but I don't think the current change to systemd is the right approach.

On the plus side - this controversy has prompted me to look into other options for my home servers and I'm loving the minimalism and simplicity of Alpine. (This isn't a knee jerk reaction - I've been frustrated by the bloated feel of mainstream distributions for a while - more the straw that may break the camel's back)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Quazatron@lemmy.world 86 points 1 month ago (2 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 21 points 1 month 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 13 points 1 month 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?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Try to gather a team of seasoned engineers to keep and evolve the project;

What is there to evolve? Just keep it up to date with the mainstream project while applying this one patch. This is as useful as the signatures that prohibit use of comments to train LLMs.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dathknight@discuss.tchncs.de 63 points 1 month 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'? 🙄

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 month 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 14 points 1 month ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago (2 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 15 points 1 month 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.

[–] Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I think you underestimate the technology they have now especially in relation to an event that happened in the 1940's.

Its like the Stasi but ten thousand times more sophisticated and every bit as motivated.

Maybe even more motivated, because it generates money for them when they have businesses do it (Palantir) and provides "value" to the markets. Because money and control is absolutely all they care about (in the USA)

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] nuxi@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 59 points 1 month ago (3 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 27 points 1 month 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.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

Finally someone who's read into the issue

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Will you still say that when they implement ID checking functionality?

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Will you still say that when aliens from the 19th Dimension verify your age rectally?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 12 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Obviously not, that would be something very very different than what they've done.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] org@lemmy.org 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They’ll just keep forkin’ and removing that field haha

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Honestly it's such a minor change, I'm pretty sure they could just grab all the upstream commits in the future and not do anything and it'll be fine.

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month 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.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] db2@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

And in a month none will be active at all.

[–] vinyl@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Liberated systemd is a fork of mainline systemd started by Jeffrey Seathrún Sardina, a machine learning/AI researcher

I already have qualms about that.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Call me dreamy-eyed, but the reference to "machine learning" might mean this person has respect for what the technology is and has been for decades before the chatbot flood

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Reject the age verification.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 13 points 1 month ago

Far many more than someone.

[–] Samsy@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Charlxmagne@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month 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.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if there is no malicious intent in adding this, they really should learn to read the room.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

The biggest defense for this I see is:

  • it's not bad now
  • it's not mandatory
  • it will remain unused like the other fields that were previously there
  • you can put anything in it

Then, tell me, why bother adding this in the first place, exactly at the time governments are looking toward full control of everybody's computers? If it's that innocent and useless, either someone really likes throwing shit up, or it won't stop there.

And given the slate of other things that "didn't stop there" in the past few years, you know, it cost nothing to be cautious. Especially if it's "so useless you won't even notice it's there" after all.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›