Everyone seemingly getting mad about systemd adding a completely optional date of birth field to user records that is, in reality, only ever going to be filled in on the machines of children administered by parents who want such restrictions enforced, perhaps on machines administered by schools, or by people who want their computer to wish them a happy birthday.

@erincandescent "only ever going to be filled in on the machines of children administered by parents who want such restrictions enforced"

You say this as if it's not a huge problem in itself. We should not be building or shipping tools for abusive parents to use to surveil or control their children.

@dalias abusive parents will surveil and control their children whatever you do. Honestly if some of these parents decide to leave things up to the government (which is on average midly conservative) instead of themselves (which is quite often incredibly conservative) it might even be a net win

@erincandescent That doesn't justify being part to it and essentially forcing distros to ship an abuse-mechanism unless they actively patch it out (thereby having to make a highly charged political statement).

Yes a determined parent with technological know-how can always find a way to put such malware onto their child's machine. We should not be making it an out-of-the-box feature of "Linux".

@dalias A date of birth field in a user information record is an abuse mechanism?

RE: https://social.treehouse.systems/@mgorny/116274748222570834

@erincandescent Combined with other things, yes. See for example:

@erincandescent Right now, there is no standard place for a DOB field to be stored or for applications to know how to access that information or use it to enforce rules blocking access to information.

By creating standard places to store it and standard APIs to access it, you setup the infrastructure needed for these abuses to be something available out-of-the-box rather than requiring a ton of custom hackery by the abuser to setup.

@dalias i’m not sure what your actual argument is here.

Is it

  • “We shouldn’t provide parental controls because instead of using them responsibly to give children access to developmentally appropriate things they’ll abuse them to restrict what they can see”, or
  • “We shouldn’t provide parental controls because instead it should be the responsibility of those same abusive parents to watch over what their children are doing”, or
  • “We shouldn’t provide a system level age restrictions API because the parent might provide an accurate age to the relatively trustworthy computer (which will inevitably result in them providing it to relatively untrustwothy apps instead)”, or
  • “There is absolutley nothing harmful to children available on the internet and we should just provide them 100% unrestricted unmonitored access without age gates of any kind”?
@erincandescent @dalias 4) Parental controls don't protect kids, bans on advertising, tracking, and conversion therapy do.
@emma @dalias hey i’m all for these things but also think maybe we should do things to stop young children from accidentally wandering into pornography (especially but not limited to, to use an example, things like CNC scenes absent the context to understand things like pre-negotiated consent) or violent movies

@erincandescent @dalias that's fine, but don't make it easier for evangelicals to murder people along the way.

btw, when you say CNC I assume you don't mean computer numerical control, unless you want to block access to all of the precision machining content on YouTube.

@emma @dalias By CNC I mean consentual non consent.
@erincandescent @dalias we can't have nice things... I guess, everything has to have a double meaning for horny fic writers.

@erincandescent @emma Nobody "accidentally wanders into pornography". That's an excuse.

If you're really worried about this, you mandate that porn sites have a splash page that says "this is a porn site. what you're about to see is sexually explicit. do you want to continue?"

Children who are not actually looking for porn are going to hit the back button stat.

@dalias @lispi314 @erincandescent @emma thinking back, I discovered explicit porn arguing maybe 13 or 14 years old, but the things that haunt me the most even now are never sexual imagery, but rather, gore