Claiming that something is a fallacy doesn’t make it any less true. It’s a very lazy way of arguing.

I agree completely, i’ve seen an example of this recently :

It’s just a stupid “slippery slope” fear mongering.

I also have a list of examples of things that are not fallacies, just poor debate skills:

• Incorrect usage of a fallacy
• moving goalposts
• feigned ignorance
• projection

If i had to pick one though i’d probably go with the Invincible ignorance fallacy

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.

i’m also on slrpnk.net (same username) though i’m much more a lurker over there.

I’m all for the “everything is political” position, at least where animals are concerned (people are also animals).

I wasn’t asking that question in seriousness but your points are interesting.

I’d think all the examples you provided are people politics , with a grass subject.

I think what i meant was “is physical grass inherently political” but i haven’t thought this all the way through tbh.

I get that grass as a concept can be (and is) a political subject, but the physical grass itself ?

Like, can physical objects be inherently political if you take them outside of external political influences (people stuff)?

Hmm, i shall have to think about this one.

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.

!remindme 1 year

That make sense, I see why you have the list now.

It’s an escape clause for when you don’t understand what’s going on, just claim “Zionist false equivalence” and you don’t have to actually figure out what’s going on.

I have to say, I find that terribly disappointing.

“Everything I don’t understand is Zionism” is almost as bad as “everything I don’t like is woke”.

There is no Zionism or any equivalence of any kind in my replies. If you wish to try again, my questions are in the first reply (where they have been the whole time), if not, no need to try and drag it into something unrelated.

I’ll give you a hint, its the parts that end with ‘?’

Bonus points for any section you can point at that has any Zionism or False equivalence.

Im out for now, you got this!

There was no discussion to begin with, that would requires you to understand enough to respond to the text being presented, there had been no evidence of that so far.

I can and have been engaging just fine, you seem to be the one having trouble with this particular interaction.

As I stated initially ( it’s still there, feel free to review ) the terms themselves aren’t the red flag, it’s the approach to using them.

I did engage you in earnest, with my contextual perspective and then with questions somewhat related to the subject.

You went with a slight as a response, didn’t read the rest of it and then proceeded to guess incorrectly multiple times about information easily available.

If you don’t want to read, that’s fine, suggesting reading materials for a context you don’t understand however, makes you seem incompetent.

I demanded nothing, which again you would know if you had read or understood the response.

I don’t think further communication will be to anyone’s benefit, you’ve shown no indication of being able to follow along with basic conversation.

Not a single response has been relevant to the text to which it was replying.

I’d be genuinely surprised if you could actually compile an OS. Which means your opinion on related topics is suspect as far as I am concerned.

I don’t see edit markers on either of your responses, so I must conclude you had no technical questions regarding this breach of commit.

That would be a natural conclusion given that neither you nor i have made any reference to that article until just now, but congratulations, a correct conclusion still counts…i suppose.

That article has no bearing on any of my questions or any position I’ve taken, which you would know if you had read/understood anything that has happened so far.

If/when you do, let me know. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on esr’s essay on how to ask smart questions

Similarly , that essay is for technical, code-related questions, of which i have asked none.

Keep going though, I’m interested to see if you figure out what’s happening.

You’ve got this, i believe in you!

…

If you can’t understand it, chances are you can’t answer it so this saves us both some time.

I was half-hoping someone with a big “I subscribe to this specific and obscure political ideology” would be expecting questions/discussion.

Then again, that’s on me, i did see the big red flag warning at the beginning and went ahead anyway.

The flags are there for a reason i suppose, worth a try.

I’m not even who you’re replying to but this is too interesting not to at least try to ask.

As this is probably going to be our first and last interaction I’ll preface this by saying we probably share a lot of the same values but it seems our approaches are different.

So here goes.

1. That’s a hard pass from me. As a concept i mean.

If you require me to read a set of rules to interact with you that’s an immediate red flag for me, regardless of how reasonable they are.

I’m not suggesting you stop requiring them, i’m just saying i’m also free to ignore them.

That being said i did actually read them on this occasion, i have no compulsion to abide by them, it just so happens that they mostly align with how i interact in general. That probably doesn’t seem like much of a distinction, but it is to me.

As a side note, I’m a stickler for word choice and a solid 90% of people i’ve ever interacted with who claim to dislike pedantic grammar police are actually salty because they are being called out logical incorrectness in their word choice or sentence structure.

This is purely anecdotal and i am in no way accusing you of this, but for me it’s an orange flag to see something like that.

2. That’s fair, i’d expect nothing less.

3. This is the interesting one, i don’t disagree on the principle but i’m interested to see how far through this you have thought.

As i said to the person i replied to, the issue here isn’t the field itself so much as the intention behind it.

If you’re far enough down the technological self reliance rabbit-hole to be compiling your own OS then you probably aren’t too fussed about dropping a few services if they mandate age verification, (the third party kind, not solvable by self compilation).

As a hypothetical. let’s assume somebody technically competent (but common sense deficient) has a visit from the good idea fairy and convinces someone in power to mandate age verification at the ISP level.

Is that a “stop using the internet” kind of moment or a “pirate ISP” kind of thing, perhaps a Cuba style local internet type deal or something else entirely ?

4. That’s a big ask for the everyday consumer, as it stands at least.

Does this way of thinking also address trust in the code itself or does that require you to read and understand all of the code being compiled, including libraries and other supply chain artifacts ?

Does it extend to hardware as well, with things like IME, PSP and perhaps DASH all the trust in the world won’t counter internal hardware based attacks ?

Not that i’m saying to do nothing, just wondering where you sit on this subject.

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).

The premise for why it’s being added however, subjectively does.

Which you know.

Also full address and name aren’t mandatory, so it’s not really a good comparison.

edit: I just realised i also replied to the same comment from you elsewhere in this thread.

I’m sure you understand the issue isn’t the actual field but the premise behind why it’s being added.

I agree it’s a bit stark but it does ease up once you get used to the hunting and gathering mechanics, not by much though.

I think the in game reasoning is that the cold your experiencing is already coldest canada, but has an element of extra ice age cold.

Coldness increases calorie consumption due to the heating requirements i think , but i can’t say I’ve been anywhere cold enough to say if it’s accurate or not in the game.

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.

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.