• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    So they’re introducing a system where a users age can be verified?

    No. They are not.

    It is an optional field that does no semblance of checking its veracity. Again, like basically every bit of electronics has had forever.

    • lumpenproletariat@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      19 hours ago

      It is literally for the act of verifying a users age.

      Being the verifier instead of the requester doesn’t make it not age verification. It’s part and parcel.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        I just don’t see how it’s any different than my Sony PSP having an optional birthday field. Or oldschool forums having one. It can’t possibly affect me, or anyone who’s concerned about it.

        If systemd starts talking about bundling face scanners or whatever they actually need to verify someone’s age, and then tons of linux systems start requiring it, then I will be gravely concerned.

        • sonofearth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          14 hours ago

          it’s optional now but can be mandatory later? It literally takes a baby monkey’s brain to understand that.

          Also this is literally in the PR:

          Stores the user’s birth date for AGE VERIFICATION, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      ah yeah because all of our digital clocks, smartphones, smart watches, microwaves, washing machines, TVs, and… what else stores user age in a standardized manner? oh, you say none of these and no other things either?