While I don't like age verification, I do have to give the System76 guys some credit for pushing for an exception
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
421 points (99.5% liked)
Linux
17565 readers
46 users here now
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Its so sad, I would have really loved to move to colorado
It's unenforceable on Linux. A Linux user can simply remove or modify any code running on their machine. Fedora, Debian, and Arch can't make a user verify their age any more than they can force you to use Gnome. It's kinda the whole point of FOSS.
There is a very easy way to force linux users to enforce this. However, I won't give it away here, because as far as I can tell the current law makers are clueless.
And I don't want to give them clues.
I don’t see any real way, unless they’re going to require age verification to connect to the internet in the first place.
My fellow lemming, your lawmakers are not on here don’t worry.
There isn’t an easy way. There may be a way to enforce it when you connect to a remote site, but that requires the remote computer to implement it, not you.
I'm already seeing that in a year or two, we're getting blocked on websites or electron applications because of age verification just like in android with Google Play Services. Like use age verification software or get blocked for 99% the internet.
They don't even need to turn it into law.
Whatever device based verification those websites or electron apps were communicating with can be spoofed in a system where you have complete control.
Games are cracked in weeks at most, don't you think that whatever secure communication is established won't be cracked lightning fast by the whole FOSS community? Once the "secure communication" between local apps is broken, a third package can mitm that shit easily. It's a local environment.
Honestly the faster they try to lock us out of the web the sooner we can get a second, freer web with card games and prostitution.
Blackjack and hookers for 500 please
So just like the old net before Google, Meta and Amazon :)
"Like putting too much air in a balloon!"
Like a balloon, ...and something bad happens!
That may be my favorite line from the whole show
It is a classic. Another of my favorites: "At the risk of sounding negative, no!"
That's true and I bet its a big part of the plan. The good parts for us about that approach, though, is that the bad technology is baked into the services, not the user's software, and the system depends on the tech oligopoly remaining. Laws are more durable than trends, so maybe that could be better for online privacy long-term, because the oligopoly will eventually break up. If we're real lucky, some of them won't survive the AI bubble aftermath enough to participate in this.
Our current law makers are still debating if freeing the slaves was a good idea. That's how far behind they are.
Behind or ahead? Maybe we shouldn't respect the laws they make?
I am very glad that you have strategically selected which parts of your mind to lose.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And that's the whole point of the amendment to that law. Their congress critters were enlightened on the futility of such an endeavor. Next is California.
load more comments
(2 replies)
How some Linux developers defeated (for now) the new OS age-verification laws. Long live those Linux developers, who "heavily criticized the mandates", made public statements, and contacted the legislators.
Because other Linux developers, instead, immediately bent over backwards to start implementing changes towards accommodating those laws; for sure they didn't heavily criticize the mandates, nor make public statements, nor contact the legislators.
Let's not misdirect peoples anger over age verification
The blame for age verification rests solely on the legislative bodies and the governors who didn't immediately veto it.
The first thing on the post you linked is the systemd change which adds a new number field in a completely user controlled local environment where they can write anything they want.
Oh nooooo... ಠ_ಠ
Oh come on we know how this works. Age verification is a prelude to digital ID and that "totally optional user field" is a prelude to something not optional. The current incarnation of that PR is optional and user controlled but it leaves us open to more and more.
Never give them an inch
a prelude to something not optional
How would that even work in FOSS?
They defeated one of the laws in one jurisdiction. The California law is still in place, international laws are still in place, and federal laws are being advanced.
From the linked System76 blog:
New York’s proposed Senate Bill S8102A requires adults to prove they’re adults to use a computer, exercise bike, smart watch, or car if the device is internet enabled with app ecosystems. The bill explicitly forbids self-reporting and leaves the allowed methods to regulations written by the Attorney General. Practical methods for a bill of such extreme breadth would require, in many instances, providing private information to a third-party just to use a computer at all. Privacy disappears.
That's appalling, and NY won't be the only government trying it. This is going to be one of those battles we need to fight again and again.
And again and again we shall fight
It also goes to show you who is running the government
Too bad this is moot. Google wants to deploy QR codes to prove you are human and not AI. The QR code is for your phone to prove you are real. Oops, your phone has a uuid and phone number and there goes your privacy.
Google qr code = Ctrl+W and never visiting your site again.
Yup. VERY easy soultion.
Can you give a source for this?
I'm presuming the QR uses the advertiser ID, which can be changed.
Phone number would be GDPR, so I don't think that can be used.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
is there a similar contingency in the California law?
Not yet, but I’ve spoken with Wicks staffers responsible for writing the bill. They are very aware of the open source issues and working on getting changes implemented during the current legislative session.
They are very aware of the open source issues and working on getting changes implemented during the current legislative session.
There is no 'open source issues'.
There is an absurd law issue that cannot be solved through 'exemptions' (which can always be removed later on) but by completely getting rid of the law itself. These are bad laws that aim to kill online privacy, with or without exemptions for our dear open source/Libre software.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You know ... now that open source is officially a legal loophole, I could see this making it more popular.
New reason to use Linux: You're 13 and you want to look at boobs on the internet, but other operating systems won't let you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I must admit pessimism here, once this crap has the 99% (OK 95% or less for non-phones) accepting it, they'll come for linux (or the ISPs). When they came for the gays I didn't speak out... It's the thin end of the wedge (OK, extremely thick end). Colorado is not the world. The laws will be flawed, but continue to be amended, perfected, worldwide, because politicians as a class hate free speech, and anonymity protects free speech. The technically able will keep finding loopholes, but the vast majority will be left behind.
Probably there will be an exception made for corporations, after all, they have more need for privacy than the populace. /s
load more comments
(6 replies)
view more: next ›