“software can’t just ignore laws it doesn’t like” it literally can.
-
“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/
-
I cannot believe ITS got brought up as a counterpoint but welcome to mastodon I guess
@zzt I can't believe ITS was brought up, period.
-
I cannot believe ITS got brought up as a counterpoint but welcome to mastodon I guess
@zzt
What the actual fuck? -
@zzt
What the actual fuck?@kirtai I cursed myself with this post because right after someone tried to nitpick me to death on how because debian coincidentally doesn’t ship logind by default it’s misinformation to claim that anything in linux is doing age verification
somehow every type of mastodon reply guy is here in this thread and they all fucking love age verification
-
@zzt I can't believe ITS was brought up, period.
@larsbrinkhoff fucking right? like shit I love ITS (I compiled a tape from your repo soon after I found out about it just to find out more about how ITS is built) but I don’t think I’ve ever brought it up in random casual conversation
-
“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 next step after "do not comply in advance" is "fuck you, make me".
-
@zzt READ IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST MOTHERFUCKERS! THE NUMBER TATTOOS WERE AN ENTRY IN THE IBM HOLLERITH PUNCH CARDS
Seriously this is straight up fash creep and anyone with half a clue OR a heart should be fighting it.
There is no good way to implement this-- especially in the currently out of control corruption that's wrecking everything around us. It's just one more point of leverage they'll use to squeeze everyone for control. It's not worth it. More harm than good, and doesn't accomplish its stated goal anyway. This isn't how we protect kids, it's how we all (including, maybe especially, the kids) lose privacy.
-
@kirtai I cursed myself with this post because right after someone tried to nitpick me to death on how because debian coincidentally doesn’t ship logind by default it’s misinformation to claim that anything in linux is doing age verification
somehow every type of mastodon reply guy is here in this thread and they all fucking love age verification
@zzt
Oh right, because debian is linux.
/sigh -
I cannot believe ITS got brought up as a counterpoint but welcome to mastodon I guess
@zzt
When they start bringing up lisp machines we'll know the apocalypse is nigh. -
@perigee @zzt @MrBerard I will just repeat what Its FOSS said when the feature was merged:
In simple words, this is something that adds a new, optional field that can then be used by other open source projects like xdg-desktop-portal to build age verification compliance on top of, without systemd itself doing anything with the data or making it mandatory to provide
So yeah, that is what this change looks like, but this won't be stopping the haters and conspiracy theorists from making wild accusations, of course.
I don't know which hat you're wearing today ("hater" or "conspiracy theorist") but I do hope you enjoy the look.
-
“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 it's really hard to drop the best alternative we had to Windows or MacOS. if only NetBSD is safe, we're really screwed cause we're practically back to square one. there is not a great deal of binary packages for NetBSD compared to all of the other free software ecosystems. it's kind of like deciding OS/2 will be your "daily driver" as they call it.
-
“they can’t force FreeDOS or ITS users to implement age verification!” you know, I don’t think the fascists give a single fuck if you spend a relatively short period of time jacking around on increasingly expensive retro hardware before it dies and/or is priced out of your grasp. I think if they force you to do that as the only way to experience a computer you control, they’ve won.
@zzt typewriters ftw
gonna send all of my posts by paper airplane pretty soon
-
@MrBerard the age verification code is already in systemd, a core component of most distros that owns the majority of the trusted boot chain and is designed to be very hard to fork, which tends to break other applications if you don’t keep up on updates
the current age verification code is designed to comply in advance with a California law, but age verification is under consideration for US and EU law almost in lockstep
@zzt @MrBerard@mastodon.acm.org
and now Canada too. fuck everything, destroy it all. let's live on the land again and catch real fish, smoke the meat, and eat in that sweet by and by.
-
@zzt typewriters ftw
gonna send all of my posts by paper airplane pretty soon
@burnitdown watch, someone’s gonna post “let’s see the fascists come for my network of antique teletypes” like ?????
-
“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
Same logic that the germans used to get the jews. Everyone just accepted it. And if a group of people is a threat - like computer fuckers are - we get bribed and brainwashed with incel culture and corpospeak bullshit.Its literally that easy. Ask your cia case officer at any major us university how that works. They might even tell you.
The western world is a giant fucking psy op.
TL;DR: Start educating computer fuckers instead of blaming. Every westerner is either resistance or complicit
-
@perigee @zzt @MrBerard I will just repeat what Its FOSS said when the feature was merged:
In simple words, this is something that adds a new, optional field that can then be used by other open source projects like xdg-desktop-portal to build age verification compliance on top of, without systemd itself doing anything with the data or making it mandatory to provide
So yeah, that is what this change looks like, but this won't be stopping the haters and conspiracy theorists from making wild accusations, of course.
I don't know which hat you're wearing today ("hater" or "conspiracy theorist") but I do hope you enjoy the look.
I feel my asking a naive question has landed me into what I'll euphemistically describe as a 'heated debate'.
I'm kinda seeing both sides, on the one hand slippery slope arguments have questionable validity ('did you know copper wires can enable a surveillance network?') but on the other, if this change doesn't constitute a move worth opposing to you, what event down the line would you actually oppose?
Oh, and folks, cooling the tone would be welcome here.
-
@zzt
When they start bringing up lisp machines we'll know the apocalypse is nigh. -
“it’s just a column in a database, aren’t you being dramatic” thanks fucker, believe it or not I know how software works and I know perfectly well the type of horrid crap we can build on top of a simple backend if it’s encapsulated in the right type of system
@zzt
One could ask ibm how they implemented the stamp cards for the holocaust. Yet this company still exists, let alone has gotten any form of punishment. Its the same logic for any nazi despite a select few for a show trial. The western states have systematically shielded the nazis from prosecution, same as they do now.The issue is not the people saying "what should i do, I'm alone." Its the people who say "no mate, the nazis never lost control is a conspiracy theory."
-
I feel my asking a naive question has landed me into what I'll euphemistically describe as a 'heated debate'.
I'm kinda seeing both sides, on the one hand slippery slope arguments have questionable validity ('did you know copper wires can enable a surveillance network?') but on the other, if this change doesn't constitute a move worth opposing to you, what event down the line would you actually oppose?
Oh, and folks, cooling the tone would be welcome here.
"What event down the line would you actually oppose?"
I can think of several places where I'd say a line had been crossed:
- any requirement by a distro to make adding that data mandatory (easy to resolve, simply switch distros)
- any requirement by a distro to provide external verification for the arbitrary collection of digits that gets stored in a DoB field
The verification I think is key. As an example, the UNIX
addusercommand has prompted for things like "Real Name", "Phone Number", "Room Number" for decades. Nobody actually provides that information. This, honestly, is not conceptually different. -
"What event down the line would you actually oppose?"
I can think of several places where I'd say a line had been crossed:
- any requirement by a distro to make adding that data mandatory (easy to resolve, simply switch distros)
- any requirement by a distro to provide external verification for the arbitrary collection of digits that gets stored in a DoB field
The verification I think is key. As an example, the UNIX
addusercommand has prompted for things like "Real Name", "Phone Number", "Room Number" for decades. Nobody actually provides that information. This, honestly, is not conceptually different.Hahaha 'room number' is brill. They stopped shy of 'name of your frat'!
See, I had a hunch that verification was the real tricky point.
But when this does happen (because it will), not having this DB field verified will mean plenty of stuff can't be done on the alt. distros which do not have it.
Which is not a dichotomy that can be induced if the move was resisted upstream of that?Or is this an externality, like the problem is w/ services mandating verified age?
