Dylan, useful idiot with commit access, pushed age verification PRs to systemd, Ubuntu & Arch, got 2 Microslop employees to merge it, called it 'hilariously pointless' in the PR itself, then watched Lennart personally block the revert. Unpaid compliance simp.
This whole article/blog post reads as “How dare this person follow the law. ;(”
I really don’t understand the pushback on this one person for submitting the change request. When it is the lawmaker that put this law into place that we should be criticizing. The post repeatedly uses how the contributer said that the change was “hilariously pointless and ineffective.” As some sort of gotcha as to why the merge should not have been accepted but does not explain why the maintainers should not follow the law other than “law bad”.
It also consistently calls out the various peoples’ places of work and experience as some sort of boogeyman for why they should not be allowed to contribute to open source. If these people were universally accepted to be bad actors in the community then they would not be accepted as reviewers for these projects. This just attacks their character to try to prove a point.
The law requires an operating system provider to provide the age.
Is systemd an OS provider? NO.
They didn’t do it for the law. Especially since the law doesn’t require to do it before next year.
well someone has to implement it somewhere on the stack. systemd seems like a good candidate ?
“The law”, what law? Why should my computer in fucking Canada ask for age verification?
Because big tech and the us government want to complete the panopticon and the people queued up to approve his change worked at MSFT?
This shit needs to be stopped cold. Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t get to buy control of Linux just because he bought control of Gavin Newsom.
Even if systemd is managed by someone outside of Cali that does not automatically except them from all Cali laws. When a person decides to distribute software that comes with the legal responsibility of the locations where the software is distributed.
Why does your computer need to ask for your full name or office location? You don’t have any issues with those fields? Or is it because you understand that those are optional just like this field is?
If you don’t want to put your bday in then don’t. fork the software and remove what you don’t want. That is the great thing about open-source.
If you don’t trust the maintainer of systemd then why are you using their software in the first place?
You are right it is obvious that zuck wants to hoover up as much data as possible. But what if, instead of this being a data gathering ploy (since the law forbids the data to be used for anything else), this is them trying to put the responsibility of controlling what children look at online onto the parents?
While I don’t think that FB should be held resonsible for all the ways they fucked up the youth, I also think that the parents are to blame as well.
Hilarious that you think that the law affects how the us government behaves.
The holocaust was legal, hiding Jews to keep them alive was illegal.
Following the law does not guarantee you’re doing the right thing.
The word antisemitism has been thrown around so much that it’s lost all meaning, but what you just said, comparing the holocaust to age indication on the internet, is holocaust minimization which is near universally agreed to be antisemitic.
Its not that he said age verification is holocaust. He made the valid point, that no one should mindlessly following laws.
Also, there is a difference between drawing a comparison and equating events, or downplaying the suffering of the Holocaust.
Edit: You definitely can make a comparison, that downplays the holocaust. That would be antisemitic. But that’s not what OP did.
Equating this law with hiding jews during the holocaust is crazy.
At the rate things have been going, we are certainly headed that way and we get there by accepting this kind unnecessary privacy violations.
Let’s just ignore whether there’s any moral or ethical arguments about legal compliance: What law is this man complying with? This is not a law that governs him. He is volunteering, and not compelled. There is no sanctity of law at play here.
Are you implying that only people who are affected by something are allowed to contribute to open source projects? If this were some nobody developer in California would that really make you any more likely to accept that this merge request is okay?
There’s no subtext. This man has no obligation to this law, so “How dare this person follow the law. ;(” isn’t relevant. This man is not following a law, he is simply going about his day. He is volunteering, and not compelled. There is no sanctity of law at play here.
But, to play ball, yes. If a person who would otherwise receive punishment were to do this, I would take that into account. That is not the case here.