Not to sound alarmist, but consider a future where you *must* use #Windows 12 because switching to #Linux is "illegal" thanks to Age Verification nonsense.

It's clear the Corpos are literally trying to remove the ability for anyone to use compute without their gatekeeping. The time to fight that is now.

@operationpuppet

California dems need massive push back and primary threats.

@operationpuppet I really hate how plausible that future is. 😫
@operationpuppet Haven't read the actual wording of the law, but in theory is it good enough to require users be 18 to install Linux (Yes/No button in the installer), and then the API is either browser ID (showing it's running on Linux) or the fact that software is written for Linux (and thus will only be executed by 18+ users)?
I still think the age verification is stupid, so this line of thought is mostly geared towards malicious compliance...

@uninick @operationpuppet

Requiring (or claiming to require) that users be 18 to install Linux is _much worse_ than what the law requires.

@uninick #DoNotComply

not even "malicious" compliance that gets their foot in the door. flatly reject this. it is the opposite of Free.

@operationpuppet

@operationpuppet
“Not to sound alarmist”
– proceeds to sound alarmist
@operationpuppet These days, if you are not sounding alarmist, you are either not paying attention, or you are profiting from the scam.

@operationpuppet Unfortunately, you are not being an alarmist at all.

You even neglected to mention that you also *must* use official Google phones. De-Googled Android, will no longer exist, because Google will start blocking the install of any app unless the developer has registered himself with Google inc.
Goodbye #lineageos , #fdroid , #grapheneos , #aurorastore , #eos , #sailfishos etc

@matv1 @operationpuppet i thought that only the offical android releases woukd be impacted. I think the customized AOSP are still going to exist (and thrive with Motorola).

Edit:
https://social.cologne/@ATROXUS/116171959047671075

Andy S. Evers (@[email protected])

#Motorola und #GrapheneOS arbeiten für sichere #Android - #Smartphones zusammen Nicht mehr nur #Pixel - exklusiv: Der Smartphone-Hersteller Motorola und die GrapheneOS-Entwickler machen künftig gemeinsame Sache. https://www.heise.de/news/Motorola-und-GrapheneOS-arbeiten-fuer-sichere-Android-Smartphones-zusammen-11194164.html

Mastodon

@matv1

1) This isn't the case for any of the custom Android-based systems you just mentioned

2) The GrapheneOS Foundation just announced a partnership with Motorola, and will be launching secure, degoogled devices next year. So no, you don't need to use an "official Google phone".

@Andromxda nevertheless , all the alternative android operating systems rely heavily on the alternative stores.
No one knows for sure what the effect will be on all the devs publishing there. FDroid is actively discouraging them to register.
But it could well be that many of them might just give up altogether when their reach is so limited.

I hope they won't ofcourse.

@matv1 Google's changes will convince many users, especially current users of FOSS apps to switch to alternative systems such as GrapheneOS. The community of both FOSS developers and users will continue to exist there. Of course it would be better if Google stopped pursuing their plans, or was forced to by regulators, but I don't think the effects of this will be as noticeable as some are predicting.
@Andromxda I very much hope you are right!
@matv1 @Andromxda the war on general purpose computing comes from completely different directions. DRM and device integrity attestation .. And age verification @operationpuppet
@operationpuppet I saw this and I get your worry, but I also saw a post that really explains this well:

https://void.rehab/notes/ajewdytnc7x7qzjl
@mia

i want to clarify something w.r.t. california requiring age "verification" at an operating system level. the way the law is specified is actually exactly the correct way to do this - users self-report their age during setup and that information is available to applications that have a reason to request it. it is entirely within the spirit of the law to add whatever age the user reports to a database that can be read from, like /etc/passwd which already can store things like emails or phone numbers. there is no suggestion that an ID check or facial scan be part of account setup, and any vendor implementing this would be doing so of their own accord the vision of an age verification scheme like california's is that an adult can set up a child's account to be in a specific age group, then have the system automatically inhibit the child's access to applications that they aren't allowed to access. this could be further built upon by laws requiring ex. gambling services to check this signal before allowing the user to sign up. of course this can be circumvented, but all laws can the way this will effect linux is not going to be described well by media because they don't tend to have the best understanding of the open source ecosystem. it will be up to distributions (not linux itself) to ensure there is an age step in account setup and a library for accessing that information. this is fairly simple to implement and work has already started on it additionally, i am not interested in debating anyone on whether age verification should exist. im trying to clear up misinformation about a very simple bill that anyone can read. if i don't know you, i have no reason to discuss philosophy with you

void.rehab
@operationpuppet I will never stop using Linux on all of my computers #Ubuntu #Garuda #CachyOS