• Eldritch@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is awesome to hear. But the fact that they had to do this after the fact tells you all you need to know about how stupid and poorly thought out to these laws are.

  • BigTrout75@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m trying to understand the logic. I guess they think the kids are too dumb to use Linux.

    So what if you’re running Linux on Windows? Does that qualify?

    • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The logic is none of these distros would do shit to comply with this, and enforcement is almost impossible. This is just saving face.

      • Matty_r@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        There were some people practically tripping over themselves to add all the prerequisites needed to support age verification. Instead of waiting to see how things played out, they just rushed through changes for things like systemd.

  • 4am@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is fucking BAD you guys. Like, we’re being dog walked into a fucking wall here.

    Major Big Tech companies (and their Fortune 500 partners, and the smaller businesses they support) are ALL going to be asking for age verification for all their SaaS “cloud” offerings and be required to do so by law.

    If Linux is exempt from these laws then these services which we may all still be dependent on in some form or another will not work with Linux, since it doesn’t verify age.

    You won’t be able to bank or watch Netflix on Linux anymore and it will destroy adoption just as it’s going mainstream.

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The law requires the OS to ask the age and provide it to applications, not verify the age. Linux can provide the same API with a static value or “no age” signal if needed.

        • 4am@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You’re right we should ignore the takeover of technology from our very hands into the paws of oligarchs who will make it unobtainable so they can build their datacenters with it and once all the consumer brands have dried up they will sell us dumb terminal tablets and we will rent all software from them in the cloud, by the month.

          I’d ask you to come back and tell me how right I was in say 5-10 years but a) there’s no guarantee they will succeed and b) if they do succeed, none of us will be allowed here in the first place

  • username_1@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why? That law was stupid in the first place but now it is completely idiotic. It isn’t coherent even with its original sick logic.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      My guess is they figure it will make little difference due to network effects, and by making this exception they can remove a meaningful source of political resistance to the change. If the vast majority of users are running operating systems that declare underage status, then websites and apps will be able to use those signals to sidestep legal liability for actually doing anything meaningful to protect underage users, and new laws can be passed that assume the use of those signals is possible. That it isn’t 100% doesn’t change that very much.

  • Digit@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So the situation [there] is:

    • free software’s principles are preserved for users of free software based operating system,

    • but if you use a proprietary operating system, you have to report your age to the pedovores… ? ? ? !

    How rusty must the nail under them get before they move away? User lock-in got them trapped tight?

    How long before we cease feeding the dragon tyrant?

  • frongt@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    How does that make any sense? How is the license for a piece of software relevant to verifying age? If I make a site that is objectively harmful to minors, I can just make it open-source and I’m exempt? Or, if I make a completely innocuous site that doesn’t actually do anything but is closed source, I would have to comply?

    But really, nothing should be doing strong identity verification outside of stuff like government (e.g. passports), or anything that commonly exploits identity for crime (e.g. major financial operations).

    • hraegsvelmir@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s actually a common sense exemption comparable to things like the FMLA having a carve out for small persons with a small number of people. FOSS operating systems bring a lot of value to businesses, higher education and presumably California’s government, but the many devs who make contributions that create this value on a volunteer basis could feasibly determine that they will either simply refuse to comply with it and pull these OSes from California, or that even if they did want to comply, they have an argument that compliance is simply an insurmountable burden for them to develop and maintain, in addition to maintaining the other features that actually provide the majority of the value.

      On top of these, as others have pointed out, it’s a trivial for a sufficiently capable user to modify an open source program to circumvent this. Furthermore, there are a ton of FOSS OSes where development is not based in California, and it would be a ridiculous waste of time and money trying to enforce the law on them. I kind of doubt Canada is going to extradite the OpenBSD devs (or at least the folks your donations to the project go to) to face trial in the US on this, for example.

      In a way, it’s an unusually aware law that lets legislators avoid the egg on their face of passing a toothless law when it comes to FOSS OSes, while still letting them please the “Think of the children!” crowd and squeeze more data and money (in fines) from Microsoft, Google and Apple, who will be subject to the law.

      The overall goal of the law is still terrible, but the way they went about making this exception shows a rare understanding of technology for legislators, even if it was due to public backlash and relevant technical input, rather than the legislators suddenly understanding the tech they want to control themselves.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So why not target that? RHEL and Ubuntu are big corporate distros. Plenty of other big corporate software is open source too.