9
Revert "userdb: add birthDate field to JSON user records (github.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [B] to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Comments

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 7 months ago

This PR was closed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    I agree with Poettering. What a silly thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    8 comments in c/linux@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 44 points 7 months ago

    That PR seems to have been closed rather than merged though, I don't think it has reverted the change yet

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 23 points 7 months ago

    Not reverted. Closed, not merged.

    It still remains.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 16 points 7 months ago

    That's a rejected pr

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 15 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    It's an optional field in the userdb JSON object. It's not a policy engine, not an API for apps. We just define the field, so that it's standardized iff people want to store the date there, but it's entirely optional.

    Hence, please move your discussion elsewhere, you are misunderstanding what systemd does here. It enforces zero policy, it leaves that up for other parts of the system.

    And sorry, I am really not interested in these discussions here. it's not the right place for this, and please don't bring it here. Thank you.

    https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/41179#issuecomment-4090834541

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    This data should not be on the system level at all. What’s next, gender? Race? We all know why this was done, and doing it was shameful.

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

    Especially given that a lot of us are interested in content filtering, just that we want to be in control of what we're subjected to, cf adblockers.

    I'd be super fine with it if I could tune, say, the YouTube app on our TV to not subject me to ads for illegal gambling sites, fossil fuels, vacations in authoritarian regimes, etc.

    But that's exactly what they don't want us to have control over, because that means lost income.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent