- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
I feel like most people are just gonna read the title and get the wrong idea about what is written in the page. So I will quote this:
And this is why I am of two minds about this issue. On the one hand, I fully understand that the various developers involved with these efforts want to make sure they follow the law and avoid getting fined – or worse – especially since compliance requires so little at this time. On top of that, these changes make it possible to implement a fairly robust set of parental controls in a centralised way, keeping the data involved where it makes sense, so it also brings a number of benefits for users. There really isn’t anything to worry about when looking at these changes in isolation.
On the other hand, though, I also understand the fears and worries from people who see these changes as the first capitulation to age verification, nicely making the bed for much stricter age verification laws I’m sure certain parts of the political compass are already dreaming about. With so many Linux distributions, BSD variants, and even alternative operating systems having their legal domiciles in the United States, it’s not unreasonable to assume they’re going to fold under any possible legal pressure that comes with such laws.
I’m not rushing to replace my Fedora KDE installations with something else at this point, but I’m definitely going to explore my options on at least one of my machines and go from there, so I at least won’t be caught with my pants down in the future. The world isn’t ending, age verification hasn’t come to Linux, but we’d all do well to remain skeptical and prepare for when it does make its way into our open source operating systems.
It is not that, “there is nothing to worry about age field creeping into sytemd”. It is that in the current ecosystem in which most large open-source projects live, it is easier said than done to take a principled action against early compliance with such laws. Which is much more reasonable than trying to undersell this change as “eh it is just an optional age field”. It is not, it is a statement that when asked to comply with surveillance laws, they will be met with minimal resistance.
Well said. In fact there’s more than an ecosystem problem. We must understand that saying or using “FOSS” or “Linux” does not automatically mean to stand up for human rights, for the community, and against corporations. I’ve personally been under this gross misunderstanding, and I think other users might be too.
If we read the comments in current debates about FOSS, Linux, and age verification, we can see that many developers and possibly also users make statements like “the developer has no obligation towards the community”, “the law is the law, no matter what the community wants”, “we must comply”, and similar. It’s important to realize that many developers work on FOSS not out of consideration for the community or for human rights. For them it’s just one kind of software development. We may have projects that are FOSS and pro-corporations or pro-surveillance. The “F” in FOSS stands for freedom to modify and distribute the software by/to anyone in the community. But it doesn’t stand for “software that promotes / stands up for general human freedom” or human rights.
So for anyone who, like me, wants to use and promote software as an assertion of and a stand for human rights and against corporations, beyond the simple “software” aspects, it’s necessary not to stop at “FOSS” or “Linux” but apply more scrutiny and a more careful choice.
Agreed. I find it a bit insane that main discussion point up to now has been whether or not this PR is related to compliance with surveillance laws, especially when the author of the said PR states that is the motivation.
Whether or not such projects have a responsibility for promoting human rights is a much more valid discussion point, along with practicalities of the approach. But that also reminds us an essential aspect of FOSS. Despite being the dominant init system in the linux world, it is by far not a monopoly and any group with enough knowhow can easily maintain a surveillance free version of it. But ofcourse if people keep downplaying the political aspect of what has been done here then they might find themselves in a boiling frog situation.
I honestly don’t under understand why Systemd’s addition of an optional age verification module was such a big deal. This is a smart move that helps manage risk while having no real impact on anything. I feel that this article aligns wioth my perspective on the issue (particularly the 2nd/3rd to last paragraphs).
However, I would like to emphasize a somewhat tangential point raised by this opinion piece:
Developers from all over the world may contribute to Debian, but all of its financials and trademarks are managed by Software in the Public Interest, domiciled in New York State. Fedora is part of Red Hat, owned by IBM, and we all know IBM. Arch Linux’ donations are also managed by Software in the Public Interest. The Gentoo Foundation is domiciled in New Mexico. The FreeBSD Foundation is domiciled in Boulder, Colorado. The NetBSD Foundation is domiciled in Delaware. Ubuntu is a Canonical product, a company headquartered in London, UK, a country with strict age verification laws for websites and applications. Hell, even Haiku, Inc. is domiciled in New York State. I could go on, but you get the gist: all of these projects manage their donations, financials, trademarks, and related issues in the United States (or the UK for Ubuntu).
This is not a sustainable approach. You can’t have much of open source be legally tied to the United States; a country that is almost certainly going to be dominated by oligarchs, chauvinists and regressives at least for the next ~30 years.
No disrespect to sane Americans, but if you live outside of the US you do need to take a more sober perspective on such matters. Especially considering the general human tendency to avoid rocking the boat.
That being said, a dependence on the US is a liability for any society that values freedom, democracy and having a happy society.
And open source is arguably an Achilles Heel against the American model, one that they can’t beat that easily.
Yes. Open source software is never really (in theory, yes (jurisdiction of the project/developers), but not in practice) dependent on particular jurisdictions anywhere, because it’s like open knowledge that can be instantly translated/compiled/packaged into a usable product. And this open knowledge can spread anywhere and also be modified by anyone anywhere at any time.
And this is important, as we’re seeing with the US now drifting into a fascist dictatorship that stopped being reasonable or sane and just does what it wants. Open source is an important defense against the appearance of criminal regimes, because it guarantees independence and always possible continuation of the software.
So for example even if the devs/maintainers of open source projects would be legally forced to add age verification code, it’s still open source and can be patched out rather easily (e.g. be replaced by code that just does “isAdult = true; return isAdult;” without any online
spywareverification systems behind it, and the modifications can then be distributed by anyone, anywhere, anyhow and be applied by all users of that software.This age verification stuff is only really broadly applicable within the context of proprietary software where users have zero control over what the software does and have to use it exactly like packaged (although there are probably workarounds even in that case). Worst case scenario is that they’ll realize this and as a result not scrap the whole idea or make an exception for open source, but instead try to make open source software illegal simply because it can’t be enforced there. But that would of course prompt such a major backlash world-wide that they won’t achieve anything with that except make themselves look silly. But you never know what those politicians and lawyers are smoking next…
I honestly don’t under understand why Systemd’s addition of an optional age verification module was such a big deal. This is a smart move that helps manage risk while having no real impact on anything.
Drama queens love to freak out about optional nothingburgers. It’s their entire personality.
You say “smart move that helps manage risk while having no real impact on anything”, I say “foolishly craven gesture that demonstrates incompetent leadership while having no real impact on anything.”
Given that the incompetent leadership is here to stay it’s best to adjust to the situation and not make it worse. Moral victories mean very little compared to getting things done.
Because the hive mind has determined that age verification is bad, so anything linked to it is also bad. We don’t need to critically assess whether optional age fields are harmful themselves; we have all the information necessary in its relation to another thing that’s bad so we can save ourselves some thinking and just yell.
The only one that wouldn’t would be SUSE. Headquarters in Luxembourg, privately owned by a Swedish investment firm.
