He thinks a cross-distro API standard can be a practical solution to tackle age verification.
  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
    51·
    5 hours ago

    Youtube requires age verification for some content since many years.

    Out of curiosity, who here is still browsing YT without verified age?

    Who browses YT logged in with their google account and verified age?

    Too bad we don’t have pool here. I would really like to see what % of people complaining about age verification here verified their age in their google account.

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      7 minutes ago

      I’ve never verified my age for any operating system or website. I use YouTube logged out with an ad blocker

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    3 hours ago

    Does Fedora has a Code of Conduct? Time to update it to either be

    • the meaningless “Be excellent to each other!” (as seen in any open source Elon Musk project),
    • or to include “protecting diverse opinions” (which is always a code word for “protecting bigotry”) instead of throwing out bigots who often don’t even meaningfully contribute to the project,
    • or to the Ten Commandments,

    if they really like the taste of the boot. Maybe they could remove “woke” elements altogether for that sweet fascist-controlled US money.

  • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    1 day ago

    However… ive read the associated analysis of the California bill that reads directly on legislative intent:

    quoting he Cali Senate Judiciary Committee analysis : file:///home/jspaleta/Downloads/202520260AB1043_Senate%20Judiciary.pdf

    Why are we listening to a person who tried to link a file directly from their downloads folder?

    Also the original post that the article is referencing on the fedora forums is suggesting that we remove all networking support from baseline linux as some way to comply/circumvent the law.

    I’m sorry, but I just can’t take anything said in that forum post seriously.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.worldEnglish
    131·
    1 day ago

    … sssssssiiiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhhh

    I went with a Fedora distro because the Intel GPU drivers were less of a headache. Guess I must now find another distro…

    • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      101·
      22 hours ago

      I would wait and be very vocal about not wanting it in the forums and stuff first.

      This isn’t decided and nothing has been added yet at the time of me writing this.

      It deserves to be ridiculed and shot down through so that it never makes it through but the problem is Red Hat is an American company.

      So I always knew this was going to happen to fedora. Still though, let’s see what happens.

        • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          21 hours ago

          I think they will, but I will wait and see confirmation before I go scorched earth and re install another version of Linux.

          I know ultimately that you are right though, but I stills expect pushback and I’m hoping all this shit just gets overturned or an exclusion made for FOSS at the very least.

  • GarboDog@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    We’re not legally required to have age verification here so if they try that shit here we’re just Gina nice to Arch/arch like :/

    • forestbeasts@pawb.socialEnglish
      2·
      12 hours ago

      Yeahhhh

      We use Debian and ripped out systemd (replaced it with openrc) a bit before all this happened. Feeling really good about that choice now.

      (unrelated: plural gang! :3)

      – Frost

      • GarboDog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        We’re still relatively new to Linux even after a year of switching. Started learning more about the terminal just to get comfortable with it and it’s not hard at all, just got to remember ask the commands haha (did make a cheat sheet lol)

        (Unrelated: Yoooo plural gang!!! :D) -PJ & Sam

        • forestbeasts@pawb.socialEnglish
          12·
          4 hours ago

          (*wags tail at both PJ and Sam!!* =.=)

          yeah! Terminal’s super useful but also kind of daunting.

          If y’all haven’t seen the man pages, they make an excellent reference. Honestly, they’re basically written more as reference than as tutorial type stuff most of the time. So that’s there whenever your cheatsheet doesn’t cover something.

          Also we use zsh (without plugins, you don’t need plugins) and it’s got really fancy autocomplete. We can just type - and hit tab and get a list of all the options for that command (that zsh knows about; I don’t think it goes and reads man pages for you or anything like that). I can’t remember how you turn that on but I think it’s something you can do from zsh’s initial setup wizard. I don’t know if bash can do the same thing or not, I think probably not (but we’re not super up to date on bash).

          (I’d avoid fish, which you might also run into if you go looking for fancy features. It’s known for really fancy features but it’s also not compatible with normal shell scripts, which’ll screw you up if you ever want to get into scripting. zsh does normal shell script syntax (with the exception of protecting you if you forget to quote your variables) and also has really nice fancy features like the autocomplete.)

          – Frost

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      4 hours ago

      It’s a lot easier to use than one would guessed it at first. Much easier, than wrestling with getting the right cmake/gcc versions every time on Debian the moment you don’t want to use not a 2+ years old version of something.

    • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7·
      1 day ago

      I already got BSD on a spare laptop. Granted it was freeBSD and I think I might switch to OpenBSD since the latter’s foundation is Canadian and not US based.

      But yeah if they go through with this I will be uninstalling it off my gaming machine and switching to Arch 100%. I really appreciated that line about it “not being April fools” when it was introduced in their github thread.

  • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    203·
    2 days ago

    Oh wait, there aren’t people chiming in to call me and others a fucking idiot and a stupid man child and all the other talking points for suggesting that the systemd merge was going to escalate?

    Fascinating. I wonder where they all went. Maybe they’re on the BSD forums now, but somehow I doubt it.

    • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      128·
      1 day ago

      Sure I can chime in here.

      You did actually read the post correct? Not just the title? The original poster, Jef, is talking about implementing a Unix socket or a dbus protocol similar to what apple already has. They are literally just referencing their definition for a struct.

      So no this will not be ID verification, it won’t ask for face scans, and it won’t necessarily send the data anywhere.

      The article is just using the big A word as some boogeyman to generate clicks and further rile up the community.

      The systemd change is benign and this is not proof of your slippery slope theory.

      Edit: I swear literacy rates in the linux community must be dropping.

      • Skankhunt420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        81·
        23 hours ago

        I read it and just like the systemd merge, this isn’t the end for this.

        We can circle back when it turns into full blown identification standards though if its more comfortable for you to come to terms with the reality then.

        Also, “won’t necessarily send the data anywhere” isn’t exactly comforting.

        • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          20 hours ago

          I just want to make sure that we do agree on a few things.

          1. Requiring actual ID verification and/or face scans is bad and cannot be effectively anonymized.
          2. That many of the current bills do not require ID verification or face scans. This includes the California one that the systemd merge request cites as well as the Colorado one that it mostly identical.
          3. The laws in their current form are poorly written and clearly misunderstand how modern general purpose computers work and are referred to.

          Given that, I think we can ultimately agree that the NY, UK, Germany, and I think also the Brazil laws are bad and cannot be fixed with simple updates to language.

          So let’s focus on the law’s that do not require actual verification since that is what the systemd change cites.

          What issues do you have outside of that they are poorly written and ineffective or that they are a slippery slope/frog in a pot/tip of the spear?

          This is not about my comfort this is about what these laws actually require rather than some imaginary law that has not even been written yet.

          I figured that someone might latch onto that “necessarily” and that’s the great thing about open-source. If that distro/application/os does misuse your data then don’t use it or fork it.

    • offspec@lemmy.worldEnglish
      716·
      1 day ago

      Oh no more people are talking about how to implement the least possible invasive version of age verification! Now they’re referencing standards for it!

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zipEnglish
        161·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, some of us really don’t want our home PCs directly contributing to the surveillance state, and we sure as hell don’t appreciate pre-compliance to the demands of increasingly fascistic states.

        • offspec@lemmy.worldEnglish
          27·
          24 hours ago

          Unless I’m mistaken everything being discussed here is still entirely within the context of your own system. Every date you put in is unverified and would only serve for something like parental control tools.

          • Senal@programming.devEnglish
            5·
            22 hours ago

            That would be covered by the

            and we sure as hell don’t appreciate pre-compliance to the demands of increasingly fascistic states.

            part.

        • offspec@lemmy.worldEnglish
          41·
          22 hours ago

          That’s cool, just lie? Like there’s no verification process going on here, this is a field on your system that can be set to whatever you want which will empower parents to keep their children out of platforms like discord where they will be predated on, and can be completely ignored by users like me who do not have any reason to restrict my own system. But keep pitching a fit over this little bullshit instead of actual age verification policies that are going to require your face id, government id, etc for every platform you interface with.

          EDIT: It really feels like you people just react to the headline and don’t even read the article. One of the core points of their discussion in the first place is that the entitlements oriented approach to parental controls is better and that it seems that legislation is poorly informed for going after an age-centric approach in the first place. These people aren’t the boogeyman trying to fuck over you and yours, they’re contributors trying to figure out how to make their platforms better in the face of obligate compliance.

    • Samskara@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      142·
      2 days ago

      Not if age verification is done by a digital signature from the smart card in your government issued ID.