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.
Given that open source wasn’t a hard criteria until you just added it
Dude, we’re talking about systemd. It being open source is the single most important factor here. If you don’t understand this you have no idea what is being discussed.
Bringing up age verification in UK is like saying iptables supports internet censorship because great firewall of China exists.
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.
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.
This questions shows you’re completely missing the point here. 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. Anyone willing will just download Linux distro for any other country and use it. 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. The source code is there, making a version of Linux without age verification is and always will be easy. The changes done by systemd are meaningless because they do no bring us any closer to real enforcement. 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. Getting mad at systemd for adding this field only shows people don’t understand what the real danger is. You’re conflating political issues with completely irrelevant technical changes. 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.
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 ?
So, incorrect usage of a fallacy, moving goalposts, feigned ignorance , and now projection.
Claiming that something is a fallacy doesn’t make it any less true. It’s a very lazy way of arguing.
The real problem is that some countries are actively trying to de-anonymize internet users. Not all countries accused of it are actually doing it, not all laws that people say will do it actually have this goal and not every technology that makes it possible will for sure be used with this purpose. Going on wild chases after some silly PRs in systemd or digital IDs is not helping anyone. It just serves as a distraction and makes fighting the real threats more difficult.
The real problem is that some countries are actively trying to de-anonymize internet users. Not all countries accused of it are actually doing it, not all laws that people say will do it actually have this goal and not every technology that makes it possible will for sure be used with this purpose.
100% agree that this is a big problem, it’s not the only one, but a big one.
I’m expecting it to work on a multiplicative curve, exponential ? geometric?
All of the bits from various places will add up and continue to accumulate momentum towards the goal.
Going on wild chases after some silly PRs in systemd or digital IDs is not helping anyone. It just serves as a distraction and makes fighting the real threats more difficult.
Which is again, not the point and also incorrect.
Highlighting this as another example of the continuous creep towards end goal while explaining the increasing encroachment is incredibly useful for getting more eyes on the bigger picture.
because…the issue isn’t the PR , but the intent behind it.
If it was just about the PR itself in isolation, i’d agree with you.
If anything, you trying to shut down the discussion around this “silly” PR is doing more to harm the general increase in awareness.
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.
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.
Dude, we’re talking about systemd. It being open source is the single most important factor here. If you don’t understand this you have no idea what is being discussed.
Bringing up age verification in UK is like saying iptables supports internet censorship because great firewall of China exists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This questions shows you’re completely missing the point here. 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. Anyone willing will just download Linux distro for any other country and use it. 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. The source code is there, making a version of Linux without age verification is and always will be easy. The changes done by systemd are meaningless because they do no bring us any closer to real enforcement. 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. Getting mad at systemd for adding this field only shows people don’t understand what the real danger is. You’re conflating political issues with completely irrelevant technical changes. 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.
TL;DR;
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.
Agreed, still illegal though.
Also agreed.
Easy is a leap, i’ll agree to possible. Still illegal in the proposed scenario.
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.
Also not true, that example doesn’t really hold up , but to answer it directly :
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.
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.
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:
If you want to continue to pretend conflation so you don’t have to actually address the concern being presented that says a lot.
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 ?
Claiming that something is a fallacy doesn’t make it any less true. It’s a very lazy way of arguing.
The real problem is that some countries are actively trying to de-anonymize internet users. Not all countries accused of it are actually doing it, not all laws that people say will do it actually have this goal and not every technology that makes it possible will for sure be used with this purpose. Going on wild chases after some silly PRs in systemd or digital IDs is not helping anyone. It just serves as a distraction and makes fighting the real threats more difficult.
I agree completely, i’ve seen an example of this recently :
I also have a list of examples of things that are not fallacies, just poor debate skills:
If i had to pick one though i’d probably go with the Invincible ignorance fallacy
100% agree that this is a big problem, it’s not the only one, but a big one.
I’m expecting it to work on a multiplicative curve, exponential ? geometric?
All of the bits from various places will add up and continue to accumulate momentum towards the goal.
Which is again, not the point and also incorrect.
Highlighting this as another example of the continuous creep towards end goal while explaining the increasing encroachment is incredibly useful for getting more eyes on the bigger picture.
because…the issue isn’t the PR , but the intent behind it.
If it was just about the PR itself in isolation, i’d agree with you.
If anything, you trying to shut down the discussion around this “silly” PR is doing more to harm the general increase in awareness.