Birthdate field under discussion also in Arch Linux

https://lemmy.ca/post/62271746

Birthdate field under discussion also in Arch Linux - Lemmy.ca

> Add a required birth date prompt (YYYY-MM-DD) to the user creation flow, stored as a systemd userdb JSON drop-in at /etc/userdb/<user>.user on the target system. > > Motivation > > Recent age verification laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc. require platforms to verify user age. Collecting birth date at install time ensures Arch Linux is compliant with these regulations. The pull-request discussion thread has been locked, just like it happened for the similar thread in Systemd, owing to the amount of negative comments…

I don’t know what people expect.

All big linux distros are going to be quickly a target, because the people who like age verification laws like that hate the idea of free software.

Putting a dummy, useless age input, is a good way to comply maliciously, and can be easily reverted if these stupid laws ever get removed.

It wouldn’t surprise me if obvious ways to bypass it appear a few seconds after the changes are validated.

The alternative is that these systems could be outawed in a lot of places, which would have a much more negative impact than an age field.

War is about knowing to take a hit to avoid defeat, sometimes.

I have no idea what to think because this sounds reasonable, but so do the arguments that it’s a slippery slope and complying now makes it easier to surveil us all later. (Yes, I know this is the name of a fallacy. I’m curious as to when is it a fallacy and when is it not. I can absolutely imagine people saying “slippery slope fallacy” and being right, I can also imagine a different situation where people say “slippery slope fallacy” to something and it happens exactly as the people whose claim is being denied with “slippery slope” fallacy said.)

I guess that is why controversial issues are controversial, no easy and obvious resolution?

and it happens exactly as the people whose claim is being denied with “slippery slope” fallacy said

But this is the crux of the fallacy. What evidence is anyone providing that there is indeed an insidious chain of events we are enabling by adding the birthdate field? Are there examples of cases similar to this in history?

yes. every time in the history of gnu software when a function is added without a purpose its for a later feature.

otherwise there is no need for the form? since when do we leave empty forms in software that can be used to store strings, that hold no meaning…

only two uses for this. to implement the full API later or to have a string the user normally does not see that becomes a perfect place to store malware. full stop.

complying with the API is a act of absolute stupidity…