TL;DR;

• The field isn't the issue, the intent behind it (and the intentions behind the law that started it) are what (most) people are complaining about.
• Pretending that people are complaining about the field itself in isolation as a means to not address the actual concern being raised is weaksauce.

---

Let’s say the answer is “Guaranteed”, in 5 years age verification on OS level will be mandated by law in US. Will it become mandatory on all Linux installations? Of course not.

If the law mandates OS level age verification, then, yes, it will become mandatory on all linux installations, in the situations where the law applies. there is no "of course not" about it.

Will everybody adhere to this? almost certainly not, will it be illegal to not adhere to this yes it will.

---

Anyone willing will just download Linux distro for any other country and use it.

Agreed, still illegal though.

---

Let’s say age verification will become mandatory in the whole fucking world and all official Linux distros will adopt it. Anyone willing will download “illegal” Linux distro and use it.

Also agreed.

---

The source code is there, making a version of Linux without age verification is and always will be easy.

Easy is a leap, i'll agree to possible. Still illegal in the proposed scenario.

---

The changes done by systemd are meaningless because they do no bring us any closer to real enforcement.

I'm not disputing that the actual change itself is of much use in a verification sense, which i've said repeatedly.

Technically , by definition, the addition of code that facilitates checks, no matter how small, is bringing us closer, but i know what you mean and I’ve already stated that i agree.

The issue being raised is not the PR itself, but the intention behind it (and the intentions behind the law that started it) , as has been stated multiple times.

---

Police knocking on people’s doors and checking their computers will bring real enforcement and what systemd does or doesn’t do has nothing to do with it.

Also not true, that example doesn't really hold up , but to answer it directly :

• If the field does exist and is incorrect (or empty), that's something they can try to admit as evidence.
• If the implementation of the field exists and this particular build/compilation doesn't include it,that is also a kind of proof.
• If the field never existed in the first place it's absence can't be used to prove anything.

To be clear I’m not saying this to claim a position of "field is bad on it's own", i'm saying your example doesn't hold up.

---

Getting mad at systemd for adding this field only shows people don’t understand what the real danger is.

As i have said multiple times, most people aren't arguing against the field itself.

You continuing to pretend they are mad at systemd for the field itself is telling.

---

You’re conflating political issues with completely irrelevant technical changes.

No, I’ve been clear that they are separate and that most aren't complaining about the technical change in isolation.

I'll quote myself:

This field is not age verification on it’s own.

Nobody is pushing this single field change in isolation is a full age verification system, to pretend they are is disingenuous and reeks of bad faith.

If you want to continue to pretend conflation so you don't have to actually address the concern being presented that says a lot.

---

This is very simple. I really don’t know how people are confused by it. It’s like you are trying to distract us from the real problems on purpose.

So, incorrect usage of a fallacy, moving goalposts, feigned ignorance , and now projection.

Is there some sort of bingo card you're working from ?

Anyway, I’ll assume bad faith at this point, as it's unlikely you hit that many checkboxes accidentally.

On the offchance I’ll get a genuine answer, what is it that you think is the "real problem" here ?

Dude, we’re talking about systemd. It being open source is the single most important factor here.

Says who? I'd argue that the perceived pre-capitulation is the most important part.

Moving goalposts to align with your notion of the most important part doesn't mean the goalposts weren't moved.

If you don’t understand this you have no idea what is being discussed.

Says someone who's whole argument relies on claiming that people think a single db field is full age verification.

The person you are replying to mentioned 3d printers as well as privacy in general , if you want to move the goalposts that's on you.

Bringing up age verification in UK is like saying iptables supports internet censorship because great firewall of China exists.

My stated position was that escalation happens and the UK is an example, at no point did i equate the single field here to the measures in the uk.

If you want to go with false equivalence try and be a bit more subtle about it at least.

I'll make it easy, respond to the following statement without moving any goalposts.

---

• This field is a pre-capitulation to a law, is states this in the PR:
  • 
• This field is not age verification on it's own.
• In the past 25 years there are provable instances of governments enacting mandatory third party age verification using laws and legislation.
• Mandatory third party age verification exists already in some places.

Of the following options, how likely do you think it is that the current US government or some part thereof will try and pass a law or add legislation to mandate OS level age verification in some form greater than the current Californian proposal.

• Out of the Question
• Very Unlikely
• Unlikely
• Likely
• Very Likely
• Guaranteed

That's actually an interesting question...is grass political ?

By touching it, would we be signalling some sort of political stance ?

Something to ponder.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954

They don’t control the distro.

And google doesn't officially control web standards, but their monopoly on browser usage means they have "effective" control, for the most part at least.

See the manifest v3 changes for extensions.

The slippery slope fallacy requires that the expected escalation be unlikely.

There already exists places where third party age verification is required, so it's not an unreasonable expectation that a government already pushing for age verification "for the children" would also try a similar kind of legislation.

Yes, please point me to all the instances of open source projects implementing some mandatory ID checks. You know what? Just name one.

Given that open source wasn't a hard criteria until you just added it to try and support your argument , why would proof of a position nobody has taken help anyone?

Perhaps you meant point you at the instances of legislative creep around privacy and age verification in the last 25 years, as was suggested.

In which case you can just search for it, it's easily findable.

If you need help with search terms, try "Age verification UK"

Nobody is claiming all(or any) open source projects will comply, the argument is that this is a step towards laws/legislation that make not complying illegal.

You could argue against that, but i don't think you'd have much of an argument, which you probably know, because you would have done that already if it was a valid point.

What they are pointing at is that systemd has potentially done something to pre-capitulate and voicing their concern.

Nobody is pushing this single field change in isolation is a full age verification system, to pretend they are is disingenuous and reeks of bad faith.

Honestly it's still an excellent game, I’m just salty about the nearly 8 year delay.

As it so happens i checked on it and the release date for the last part is apparently the end of march 2026.

I'm not holding my breath, but if it comes out on time, that'll be a nice bonus.

subjectively, all of the above.

Of course you're seeing complaints about systemd in a discussion about systemd's part in this.

If you | go and look | at the other | conversations about | the same law in a non-systemd | context you'll | see complaints there as well

It's like claiming no dry land exists when you're swimming in the sea (within sight of the beach).

Hmm, i slept on that one because i got it mistaken with Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes which is multiplayer and therefore not my usual jam.

I'll give it a look.

I really enjoyed the first two chapters, it's up in my top 50.

To be honest I’ve only made it to the beginning of the third chapter but that's mainly because i didn't want to get further into something that wasn't complete yet.

Which was more prescient than i imagined because it was 6 years ago.

Gone home was great, another good one was Everybody's Gone to the Rapture.

The Long Dark feels similar in style, though it has a lot more game elements to it.

Now if only they'd finish the actual fucking game instead of tweaking the multiplayer no-one asked for, releasing a full six part DLC or developing and getting a significant way through finishing a full sequel.

Not salty about that one at all, nope.

Ultimately you must do right because it’s right to do right. . . . You must do it because it has gripped you so much that you are willing to die for it if necessary. And I say to you this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and so precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live.

That tracks.

It’s going to depend on your interest or ability to research. However, if one were to simply buy used items when possible, or choose a brand one thinks aligns with themselves after some research, I think that’s a good start.

Agreed.

Tony's Chocolonely is a good example of this, it's not that they are 100% there but they explain why certain decisions were made so i can decide for myself if it's enough.

An example

If one thinks they might need compromise their morals, I think they should really consider their options. I’d rather pay full price for an old used GPU than give nvidia any money, but that’s my personal opinion.

I do know what you mean, i'm just not 100% sure where the morals/ethics line is supposed to go.

I'm not amoral it just seems like people arbitrarily draw lines and they seem so certain.

I'm not sure where that certainty comes from, because i don't have it.

I think this is just because car companies weren’t yet starting to surveil their drivers as part of a new revenue stream until 2014. You can read more about it.

interesting, thanks.

I don’t expect everyone to live like this, not everyone has the luxury. But I do hope people atleast try to not pay companies that harm them.

I kind of agree, but this is the kind of thing i mean, almost all companies harm them in some way, from business practices to supply chain, workforce, political donations, equipment purchases, environmental concerns.

I'm not a crazy person, i understand there is a difference between the local corner store buying a bigger truck than they need vs bezos draining whole water tables so he can buy another spaceship, it's just how people pick the hills to die on in the middle that's confusing to me.

I have something i use but it's contextual and inconsistent and by no means gives me the kind of certainty i see in other people.