• eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        6 days ago

        It was added with a note specifically that the implementation was related to a law that was described as stupid.

        I think it’s pretty clear exactly what this was being put in for, and why two MSFT devs were ready to approve.

        There’s no “it was just…” about this, it was step one of a coordinated plan that has not been abandoned.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      0·
      6 days ago

      It’s not a rumor, systemd merged a PR that explicitly said it was to allow handling the new age verification laws. Just because they aren’t actually verifying anything doesn’t mean that they didn’t merge code in direct support of the laws. And why in the world would this even be handled at systemd level anyway?

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOPEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        All of this was discussed in the PR.

        Systemd is present on the vast majority of Linix systems so it made the most sense to put it in systemd. It is an optional field so it is up to applications and distros on weither to use it for something. Age verification laws are legally binding so compliance is not optional.

        If you have a problem with age verification call your local lawmaker. Don’t attack a bunch of devs who somehow got stuck in the middle.

      • hendu@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        6 days ago

        Ideally, we wouldn’t need to do age verification at all. But if it’s absolutely required, the most privacy-preserving way would be:

        1. System administrator verifies the birthdate of the user, stores it on the user account
        2. Applications can then ask, “is the current user over 18?” And just gets true/false.