140
Birthdate field under discussion also in Arch Linux (github.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Add a required birth date prompt (YYYY-MM-DD) to the user creation flow, stored as a systemd userdb JSON drop-in at /etc/userdb/.user on the target system.

Motivation

Recent age verification laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc. require platforms to verify user age. Collecting birth date at install time ensures Arch Linux is compliant with these regulations.

This is just a pull request, no changes yet.

The pull-request discussion thread has been locked, just like it happened for the similar thread in Systemd, owing to the amount of negative comments...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 7 months ago (13 children)

I fully expect this person to not be even real and instead just another ai bot to push agenda for corporate scum

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    He’s the third highest contributor to archinstall.

    https://github.com/dylanmtaylor

    Still a dipshit but probably not a bot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    Fair enough that's pretty surprising, so even Arch is not safe from lunatics... That is disappointing. As a Manjaro user, I am likely to pick up their changes via both systemd and since Manjaro is Arch based... Sad and disappointed by useful morons who have no fucking clue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    it's so strange to me that he tried to add age verification scripting changes in archinstall. isn't that the wrong place systemd makes sense but I'm puzzled by the archinstall pr

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    The thing that's frustrating is that if the age verification laws weren't there and they wanted to add a birthday field it wouldn't seem bad. Details about the human using the account like first and last name are already stored. All you really need is username. But because it's explicitly in reaction to age verification laws we have to be skeptical about adding it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    The timing makes me even more suspicious. Of all the times one could added this field, this is probably singularly the worst one. Right after discussions of mandatory age check? Seriously?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    You don't need to be suspicious, they're explicitly adding it because of that. They said as much. Look at what they wrote under "Motivation."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (2 children)

    I sort of get the feeling of something more than just complying with the possible future age verification law. I feel like it has intent do damage and distrupt the community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I feel this law has the intent to damage and disrupt things in general, yes. Parental controls have existed for ages but lawmakers don't seem interested in them. For example, all the porn bans, rather than forcing sites to use some sort of self tagging system that parental controls could easily see (like some response header) they just want them to take IDs. All of it is a push to forcing people to always be online transparently with their real identity well known.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    The law yes, it is also I think is a response to rising anger against billionaires. They want to make sure that they have the necessary systems in place when anger actually turns into action.

    But I was talking about this person in particular. It feels like no one without a ulterior motive would try to get such a thing passed preemptively and so much like a coup. Even if this law passed in all states you could probably drag any requests to add such a verification for years and years without any actual sanctions. So why the rush to comply without exploring any other options?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    @JackbyDev @underscores Yes we do, because it is an erosion of our freedom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •