“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can.
-
@zzt tbqh i'm surprised they are actually implementing the field instead of just asking an llm to guess my age and then never bothering to check if it works
@cap_ybarra that’s effectively red hat’s mission statement at this point
-
@davidgerard @zzt @MrBerard Not ITS but
telnetting to SDF with Emacs it's a solved problem for Mastodon
once you install 'mastodon' from ELPA. -
@chiraag gentoo, arch, everything else that uses logind including debian if you configure it to do so https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/15175
genuine answer though: you’re missing the point by a mile
@zzt On Debian, it's literally a separate package (systemd-userdbd) with Priority: optional. So no, you're just wrong (that bug might have been true at some point, but it's a separate package in Debian at this point in time).
Go complain to your distro to break out the package. Debian gets this right. libnss-systemd recommends that package, but you can disable installing recommended packages automatically (which I do by default), meaning it's not installed for me.
-
@zzt On Debian, it's literally a separate package (systemd-userdbd) with Priority: optional. So no, you're just wrong (that bug might have been true at some point, but it's a separate package in Debian at this point in time).
Go complain to your distro to break out the package. Debian gets this right. libnss-systemd recommends that package, but you can disable installing recommended packages automatically (which I do by default), meaning it's not installed for me.
@zzt And no, I'm not missing the point. The point is that anyone who uses systemd-userdbd is affected, so the solution is to make it an optional bit of systemd (which Debian already does). Additionally, that bug was fixed, so users _can_ disable systemd-userdbd.{service,socket} now.
I don't like this bullshit for sure, though. I just feel like being accurate matters here, and so much of what you're saying is wrong or at best misleading.
-
@zzt And no, I'm not missing the point. The point is that anyone who uses systemd-userdbd is affected, so the solution is to make it an optional bit of systemd (which Debian already does). Additionally, that bug was fixed, so users _can_ disable systemd-userdbd.{service,socket} now.
I don't like this bullshit for sure, though. I just feel like being accurate matters here, and so much of what you're saying is wrong or at best misleading.
@chiraag shut the fuck up you tepid asshole
you asked a question and then proceeded to incorrect me about debian, a thing I do not give a shit about
you missing the point is where you’re hyperfocusing on technical details that neither the people writing these laws nor the people implementing the software care about
they’ll do whatever it takes to hurt you, regardless of what the implementation looks like
do you think debian not having logind will really save you? of course you do, asshole
-
@zzt And no, I'm not missing the point. The point is that anyone who uses systemd-userdbd is affected, so the solution is to make it an optional bit of systemd (which Debian already does). Additionally, that bug was fixed, so users _can_ disable systemd-userdbd.{service,socket} now.
I don't like this bullshit for sure, though. I just feel like being accurate matters here, and so much of what you're saying is wrong or at best misleading.
@chiraag oh wow! you edited your post to be an even bigger asshole! so a second fuck you for that actually. you fucking asshole.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
“by a technical coincidence Debian specifically doesn’t implement the current form of the age verification code in its default config and therefore you’re spreading misinformation” I don’t even know what to call this. don’t you sprain your tongue if you stretch this far to lick the boot?
-
@davidgerard @zzt @MrBerard Not ITS but
telnetting to SDF with Emacs it's a solved problem for Mastodon
once you install 'mastodon' from ELPA. -
@zzt tbqh i'm surprised they are actually implementing the field instead of just asking an llm to guess my age and then never bothering to check if it works
@cap_ybarra @zzt I heard that Linux is gonna make me try to ring the bell with a sledgehammer before I log in
-
@zzt Relax, man. It's just a numerical identifier in a database. It's harmless.
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/edwin-black-infamous-auschwitz-tattoo-began-as-an-
the tatto on jews wrist was a simple primary key ... why worry ...
-
feel free to fuck off with the “it’s just a field in a database, distros will make it a simple age gate during account creation” horseshit unless you come with an explanation of why that’ll work in a regulatory landscape where porn sites with age gates are currently under legal threat from states where an age gate isn’t a sufficient proof mechanism, to the point where some of them have started partnering with companies like (Thiel-backed) Persona for identity verification
@zzt in this case, it is really just a field in a database, because the bootlickers have not understood that they're not part of the club that gets to implement age verification.
Why should a website trust an age indication from a piece of software that might have been installed by a minor?
It was useful to see who the bootlickers are, and we should focus on getting them to understand which side of the walls they will be on when they come up.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt The venn diagram between people claiming we can't ignore age verrification and the people who've been happily ignoring accessibility and privacy regulations for decades is a flat circle.
-
feel free to fuck off with the “it’s just a field in a database, distros will make it a simple age gate during account creation” horseshit unless you come with an explanation of why that’ll work in a regulatory landscape where porn sites with age gates are currently under legal threat from states where an age gate isn’t a sufficient proof mechanism, to the point where some of them have started partnering with companies like (Thiel-backed) Persona for identity verification
@zzt READ IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST MOTHERFUCKERS! THE NUMBER TATTOOS WERE AN ENTRY IN THE IBM HOLLERITH PUNCH CARDS
-
@jwz I’m trying hard to not bring up the prison industrial complex or IBM’s role in automating concentration camps but shit these assholes really need the reminder
-
feel free to fuck off with the “it’s just a field in a database, distros will make it a simple age gate during account creation” horseshit unless you come with an explanation of why that’ll work in a regulatory landscape where porn sites with age gates are currently under legal threat from states where an age gate isn’t a sufficient proof mechanism, to the point where some of them have started partnering with companies like (Thiel-backed) Persona for identity verification
-
-
the US can’t implement gun registration in most jurisdictions because literally nobody complied with any of the attempts to enforce it but yeah sure we have to do age verification or else an entire industry built on our free software will switch to ??????
-
@zzt in this case, it is really just a field in a database, because the bootlickers have not understood that they're not part of the club that gets to implement age verification.
Why should a website trust an age indication from a piece of software that might have been installed by a minor?
It was useful to see who the bootlickers are, and we should focus on getting them to understand which side of the walls they will be on when they come up.
@GyrosGeier it’s really embarrassing that you didn’t do even basic research on who implemented the feature (an odious little fucker who thinks google locking down Android is great too) or who approved it over the objections of his own community (a guy whose entire notable career has been with corporations that enable genocides) and have just assumed that the continuing fascist project to take over open source somehow stopped before it noticed linux
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt Unjust laws must be broken.
-
“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can. corporations do it constantly and I really doubt any of them will drop linux if it doesn’t comply with a set of godawful fascist age verification laws. historically one of the forms of pushback against unjust laws is to show some basic fucking solidarity and do nothing to assist in their enforcement because it really isn’t practical to sue everybody, but unfortunately solidarity is alien to most of these computer fuckers
@zzt non-compliance in advance: https://agelesslinux.org/
