this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
485 points (90.5% liked)
Technology
83027 readers
3527 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
FUCK THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF STUPID USING LINUX. Lots of tin foil hat wearing morons making mountains out of molehills.There was no age verification support added. All that happened is a DOB field was put in so people can add their date of birth IF THEY CHOOSE TO so it can appear in their user account. It isn't uploaded to anyone, it's not checked by anyone, it is not mandatory to complete and you can leave the field blank.
Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.
I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.
There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn't exist.
Yeah, this is a devious plan that has been going on for years, when they added the
realNamefield!I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don't trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is 'less'.
Do you really draw the line at a date of birth field, when every linux system has fields for full name and address for every user account?
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux... Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
I don't think it will be easily possible to lock out every Linux system from the internet that doesn't implement some kind of hardware DRM mechanism to make sure that the user cannot just change the date of birth with root permissions.
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change. For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use - you can't - there is no such use of the field today - it's tomorrow's use that is potentially problematic. I don't want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don't trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is 'less'.
How do commercial distros prevent getting blocked if not through this?
I think you might be replying to wrong conment
I'm not really sure you can argue birthdate is the thin edge of the spear when the standard Linux user database already had fields for location, email, phone number, and real name. None of which have been used for anything up to this point, and systemd-homed is not as widely used.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don't trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is 'less'.
We are more than mere frogs in a pot though. We have made note of this. We outraged. We argued and counter argued. We will not forget so easily, no matter the view point on it.
If nothing comes of it, some of us can say "I've told you..."
If the next step gets implemented and the field becomes mandatory, some of us can say "See!! Froggies"
If it becomes mandatory and a further implementation also adds the framework to submit the data to some idp service, then we can get the pitchforks out.
we wanted the year of the linux desktop... well the first raft of windows refugees seem to be a bunch of these overzealous privacy types who think they're now a bunch of 1337 h4x0rs because they figured out how to get an nvidia driver working on mint.... they have more paranoia than actual tech knowledge, and their only contribution to the community is sowing dissent, and shouting about something as trivial as an optional data field.
The debian subreddit is downvoting an actual DEBIAN DEVELOPER when they tried to explain the situation
If i put on my tin foil hat, i'd say these people are being deliberately influenced to sow chaos in foss communities