• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

A new California law says all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup

LukeTbk said:
i.e. you understand now how much this is not coming from big tech and why they are fighting to keep it fully opt-in/optional to be setup by parents.
Click to expand...
If big tech does not include Meta, yes, as it does seem from the other Link, Meta is the one really pushing this..

Who wrote the legislation​


This is where it gets interesting. Rep. Kim Carver (R-Bossier City), the sponsor of Louisiana's HB-570, publicly confirmed that a Meta lobbyist brought the legislative language directly to her. The bill as drafted required only app stores (Apple, Google) to verify user ages. It did not require social media platforms to do anything.

Meta deployed 12 lobbyists across 9 confirmed firms for this single bill, paying at least $324,992 (described as a "very conservative estimate"). The confirmed firms include Pelican State Partners (who also lobby for Roblox, letting Meta frame this as "broad industry support" rather than one company's project), Adams and Reese LLP (the #1 ranked Louisiana government affairs firm), and State Capitol Solutions.

Nicole Lopez, Meta's Director of Global Litigation Strategy for Youth, testified at the House Commerce Committee in support. She also testified in South Dakota for a similar bill. She's Meta's national point person for these laws.

HB-570 passed unanimously at every stage: House 99-0, Senate 39-0. So why did Meta need 12 lobbyists? Because the votes were never the concern. The lobbyists were there to control the text and block amendments.

The key amendment battle came from Senator Jay Morris, who expanded the bill to include app developers alongside app stores after Google's senior director of government affairs publicly questioned why "Mark Zuckerberg is so keen on passing these bills." When Morris introduced his amendment, Meta went silent. The conference committee compromise maintained dual responsibility but kept the primary burden on app stores, which is what Meta wanted from the start.

At that same Senate hearing, Morris directly questioned DCA Executive Director Casey Stefanski about who funds her organization. She reportedly deflected, said she "wasn't comfortable answering," then under continued pressure admitted tech companies provide funding but refused to name them.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this
DukenukemX said:
Anonymity is going to keep you safe. This should be common sense.
Click to expand...
of course how having 1/1/1990 encrypted on your linux sending unique token saying yes to the question 18+? to everyone that ask for it change your level of anonymity ?

DukenukemX said:
First, there's is no universal method in how age verification is done. Is it stored in an encrypted text file or unencrypted? Where is it stored? How is it accessed?
Click to expand...
and how much do you fear someone hording you were "born" in 1/1/1990 on your Linux that do not want them to be able to with an open source solution people did verify was ok ?

DukenukemX said:
Second, applications must be able to access the age info. At which point if they don't know your exact age, then they will have an age range on you.
Click to expand...
yes, they will known you wanted an account considered 18+.

DukenukemX said:
Can this be expanded? Give an inch and a mile is taken.
Click to expand...
yes that the obvious reason to not like this, once it is in place more and more state get at ease to implement actual verification and not opt-in, more info than just age range and so on.

DukenukemX said:
You want to give these companies access to age verification?
Click to expand...
no and that what this laws try to avoid, here with that law no companies has access to age verification, no age verification is done, parent opt-in for non-verified age of their own child. People would hate actual age verification, big tech would hate for people to start to transfer to companie/service hard to track and sue, so they will resist it as much they can, try to have a self-censorship/self-parent enforcement system like Hollywood had with tv and movies.
 
MrGuvernment said:
If big tech does not include Meta, yes, as it does seem from the other Link, Meta is the one really pushing this..
Click to expand...
yes this law in the op, the one that make it fully on the parents and opt-in without actual age verficiation, is the one meta would want to try to avoid one that enforce people to verify their age somewhere. Industries fear state repreasal, they will do many things they would not want to do to avoid a worse this would happen otherwise, Facebook volontary and writting laws to protect child attention span capture/ads exposure and traffic generation on their content could be them wanting it to be nice while hurting their revenues, could be a worldwide pressure of parents and elected officials against social media platform and them prefering to choose how to handle it to let it to them choosing something that would be worse for Facebook/instagram.
 
kram182 said:
My point is you save nothing whatever you stop or do not.
Click to expand...
Then why pass laws for it? This isn't for the children, so why pass these laws?
amphmv.jpg

LukeTbk said:
and how much do you fear someone hording you were "born" in 1/1/1990 on your Linux that do not want them to be able to with an open source solution people did verify was ok ?
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand. My fake age isn't the problem. It's when governments and lobbyists realized it's doing nothing and want even stronger laws to get more info.
yes that the obvious reason to not like this, once it is in place more and more state get at ease to implement actual verification and not opt-in, more info than just age range and so on.
Click to expand...
So you do understand.
 
DukenukemX said:
Then why pass laws for it? This isn't for the children, so why pass these laws?
Click to expand...

Because everyone/every company wants their slice of the pie/to get paid for it/setting up new API standards/API plugins they control/license etc - for data that's already out there and the government etc already in possession of, should they ever 'want to know who you are'/'target you' - you have a birth certificate/Social Security/ITIN/State ID/driver's license? Can't operate in modern society without it - congrats your DOB/name/identity is in government databases - along with public records that companies can already access. Again, outside of your credit card/purchase/social profiles/data etc (which companies also pay other companies for to access and correlate with their own data or more data that they purchased elsewhere etc)
 
Last edited:
I'm posting this while it's still outside of SOAPBOX so don't report me if it gets moved.
California can go fuck themselves, might as well register everything under the sun over there.
I'm surprised they haven't started requiring rectal swabs on newborns babies so they can start fining people on "offensive emissions" when someone pass gas.
 
DukenukemX said:
I don't think you understand. My fake age isn't the problem. It's when governments and lobbyists realized it's doing nothing and want even stronger laws to get more info.

So you do understand.
Click to expand...
This. Seven pages into the thread and this is the key point.

Step #1: Pass BS law that won't work, can't work and doesn't protect anybody. BUT lays groundwork for more heinous bill.

Step #2: Outraged populous. Debates. Back-n-forth. But law fails it's goals. Outrage dies down and people forget.

Step #3: The law, renamed, and reworked quietly passes. The law they actually wanted in the first places.

Step #4: Public screwed six ways to Sunday. Gov't and Corps Win.
 
kram182 said:
Because everyone/every company wants their slice of the pie/to get paid for it/setting up new API standards/API plugins they control/license etc - for data that's already out there and the government etc already in possession of, should they ever 'want to know who you are'/'target you' - you have a birth certificate/Social Security/ITIN/State ID/driver's license? Can't operate in modern society without it - congrats your DOB/name/identity is in government databases - along with public records that companies can already access. Again, outside of your credit card/purchase/social profiles/data etc (which companies also pay other companies for to access and correlate with their own data or more data that they purchased elsewhere etc)
Click to expand...
Of course the government knows who I am but they don't know where I am on the internet. If you've been around online it's easy to see there's a cognitive dissonance between what the people think and what governments and mainstream news what you to think. There are influencers who were getting paid to change your mind, and are upset they aren't getting paid. At the same time there are foreign agents who want to limit freedom of speech to save it. Now, all of the sudden we see Europeon countries and USA states that are passing age verification laws in near unison? It's pretty clear that online propaganda doesn't work and age verification is the first step to sending ICE agents to your home because you had too much to think. You know, like how the UK are doing it. USA's constitution is meant to prevent something like age verification, and now we're using it as toilet paper.
UK police arrest social media.jpg
kindasmart said:
This. Seven pages into the thread and this is the key point.

Step #1: Pass BS law that won't work, can't work and doesn't protect anybody. BUT lays groundwork for more heinous bill.

Step #2: Outraged populous. Debates. Back-n-forth. But law fails it's goals. Outrage dies down and people forget.

Step #3: The law, renamed, and reworked quietly passes. The law they actually wanted in the first places.

Step #4: Public screwed six ways to Sunday. Gov't and Corps Win.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that there isn't massive outrage over this. System76 CEO Carl Richell is actually lobbying in Colorado to exclude open-source software from Age Attestation Bill SB26-051. I'd have no problem containing this age verification nonsense to California. If that can be done then at some point it can be taken to court and removed for being unconstitutional. Who knows, maybe even Valve might step in with their army of lawyers who made even the Rothchilds cry home to their mama?


View: https://youtu.be/aGNb3FNXtTI?si=qnMOSPzPn5kqO9F0
 
DukenukemX said:
I don't think you understand. My fake age isn't the problem. It's when governments and lobbyists realized it's doing nothing and want even stronger laws to get more info.
Click to expand...
yes you can say this, it is really easy to say that you do not like the slippery slope, you made statement about this laws and its effect, which I am replying to.

MPAA did achieve industry self-censorship in modern america, there is example of the industry, google/meta will try to defend themselve and have deep pocket.

DukenukemX said:
Then why pass laws for it? This isn't for the children, so why pass these laws?
Click to expand...
it is for their parents ? (how many time it need to be said ?), parents that want will setup kids account, it is for protecting children from the perceived harm of social media, there is a world demand from parents and that a powerful lobby.
 
LukeTbk said:
yes you can say this, it is really easy to say that you do not like the slippery slope, you made statement about this laws and its effect, which I am replying to.

MPAA did achieve industry self-censorship in modern america, there is example of the industry, google/meta will try to defend themselve and have deep pocket.


it is for their parents ? (how many time it need to be said ?), parents that want will setup kids account, it is for protecting children from the perceived harm of social media, there is a world demand from parents and that a powerful lobby.
Click to expand...
I'm a parent & don't want it done this way...

People that don't understand tech always want the Nanny State to take care of parenting for them though...
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
I'm a parent & don't want it done this way...

People that don't understand tech always want the Nanny State to take care of parenting for them though...
Click to expand...
what would you suggest (than this proposed system where parents 100% decide if they opt-in or not and local encrypted on your own device info instead of a server type ?)
 
DukenukemX said:
but they don't know where I am on the internet.
Click to expand...

if they wanted to they absolutely could without this law passing, if they already don't/have it correlated/known in a database somewhere.

don't kid yourself.

Edit: if you want to oppose this law for annoyance/convenience factors so be it - but the idea you're saving privacy is a joke, privacy is and has been dead
 
Last edited:
LukeTbk said:
what would you suggest (than this proposed system where parents 100% decide if they opt-in or not and local encrypted on your own device info instead of a server type ?)
Click to expand...
I don't want any age verification when it can be spoofed, lied about, etc. for anyone. It's up to me & my wife to utilize family safety & internet security tools available without the heavy handed/idiotic approach of any gov't and/or corporate entities.

It should remain the same for all parents to actually participate in being parents instead of absent guardians allowing chaos.
 
LukeTbk said:
it is for their parents ? (how many time it need to be said ?), parents that want will setup kids account, it is for protecting children from the perceived harm of social media,
Click to expand...
The reason it's not for their parents is because we know it won't work. It'll do a better job of tracking you as a person than preventing children from visiting unwanted websites. I can think of 1001 better methods to protect the children that doesn't require governments breaking constitutional rights.

Here's my step by step process to make children safe online without government mandate.
  1. At account creation ask if you're 18 years old or older? Exact age isn't needed since anyone bellow 18 isn't suppose to see unwanted material.
  2. Collaborate with other OS vendors like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and etc to create a universal block list to prevent children from visiting PornHub.
  3. Create a verification program where only web browsers that are approved may run in a child protected account.
  4. Anytime an application is ran then send a notification to the parents.
  5. Profit.

If a Linux distro doesn't support such features then don't install it. Government not needed.
there is a world demand from parents and that a powerful lobby.
Click to expand...
This is where my Linux association is going to come in handy. όχι. You're going to release my inner Greek with that mentality. There is $2 Billion in money spent on this. About $26 Billion in lobbying money, 86+ lobbyists, and $70+ million spent on super pacs. "Meta spent a record $26.3 million on federal lobbying in 2025, deployed 86+ lobbyists across 45 states, and covertly funded a "grassroots" child safety group called the Digital Childhood Alliance (DCA) to advocate for the App Store Accountability Act (ASAA)" This look like parents to you, βλάκας? We can see the money trail.
chart1_meta_lobbying_spend.png

chart3_influence_network.png
 
The Mad Atheist said:
I'm posting this while it's still outside of SOAPBOX so don't report me if it gets moved.
California can go fuck themselves, might as well register everything under the sun over there.
I'm surprised they haven't started requiring rectal swabs on newborns babies so they can start fining people on "offensive emissions" when someone pass gas.
Click to expand...
Remember, this is California so passing gas can cause cancer! :)
 
1_rick said:
How about nothing that's an obvious thin end of the wedge to destroy anonymity?
Click to expand...
the law as proposed is one attempt to save anonymity, if those metrics do not reverse:

FT_19.07.09_TeenDepression_2.png


australia type laws could become more and more common, here you have an anymous call asking 18+ to an os you control, that can answer with an unique token to each demanders to not add tracking info and a proposition for parents to handle it, so not third party age verification/name/anything ever involved.

That at attempts by big tech that control california rule making quite well to do the best case scenario for them, if it fail (parents if not forced do not do it but still complain after...) what would come next I doubt would be has good as this law propose.
DukenukemX said:
It'll do a better job of tracking you
Click to expand...
How would this help doing that exactly ? (and with how much meta make per american users, not sure they need help)
DukenukemX said:
At account creation ask if you're 18 years old or older? Exact age isn't needed since anyone bellow 18 isn't suppose to see unwanted material.
Click to expand...
that a deep misunderstanding of parents goals, there is a reason australian law banned under 16 from social media, not under 18. The graph above is not because girls are going more on pornhubs than boys, this is not just about porn at all.

There is stuff that they consider ok for 12,13, 15,16 and some that are 18+ stuff), for the over 18 at account creation, simply enter 1/1/1990.

DukenukemX said:
This look like parents to you,
Click to expand...
Look company with a lot on the lines trying to protect it and have some self-regulation a la movies accepted by governement (like this is an attempt to make possible)
 
kram182 said:
if they wanted to they absolutely could without this law passing, if they already don't/have it correlated/known in a database somewhere.

don't kid yourself.

Edit: if you want to oppose this law for annoyance/convenience factors so be it - but the idea you're saving privacy is a joke, privacy is and has been dead
Click to expand...
If privacy is a joke then why are they passing laws for age verification? The answer is it isn't. If you really think about it, you'll see that tracking someone online is hard. Especially when the main method to do this is IP's, but since the advent of VPN's and TOR Web Browser, then it became a lot harder to track a person online. Also, multiple people living in a home can share the IP, which again makes it harder. Especially if you're someone who uses a Linux distro or even a custom rom for your Google Pixel phone, then it comes damn near impossible. Especially if you avoid using Google, Apple, and Meta services. Just look at Statcounters "Unknown" at 16.77%. That is an alarming amount of people who can't be tracked online.

As much as you'd want to believe that you can be tracked, but the answer is not very easily. We know this because they're passing laws so you can be tracked like age verification. Stop pretending like there's nothing we can do, as it clearly works.
megaman x dog newspaper.gif
 
DukenukemX said:
If privacy is a joke then why are they passing laws for age verification?
Click to expand...
how is that law change anything to privacy exactly ? how an unique token per demanders than answer yes/no to an age range change privacy in a significant way ?

LukeTbk said:
Look company with a lot on the lines trying to protect it and have some self-regulation a la movies accepted by governement (like this is an attempt to make possible)
Click to expand...
to put it in other way, they will spend lot of money for this california law to become the world model instead of the australian and others that make it illegal for facebook-instagram to not fully block kids-teen from their revenues streams, they will say give us the tools to self-control ourself on how much attention grabbing, ads exposure, social scored feedback kids are subjected too on our platform instead of the state handling it.
 
LukeTbk said:
How would this help doing that exactly ? (and with how much meta make per american users, not sure they need help)
Click to expand...
Like I already explained, I've done it. Remember my Frueh example, the World of Warcraft player? He used his last name for his in game characters with some variation changed here and there. The Frueh willy joke would upset him. On Discord his friends celebrated his birthday, which means I now know his birthday. He said he was in the army, so that helped tracked him down. A quick Google and I found him all too easily. A common tactic to figure out a persons age is looking at their Email since a lot of people like to put their birth year in their Email address.

Like I said before, your age is a dead giveaway of who you are in real life. When you have enough points of information on a person, then you can easily find them. The less they have the better off you are.
that a deep misunderstanding of parents goals, there is a reason australian law banned under 16 from social media, not under 18.
Click to expand...
If Australia says 16 makes you an adult then 16 it is for them. The number 18 is an arbitrary choice and not a universal rule. You're just making excuses.
The graph above is not because girls are going more on pornhubs than boys, this is not just about porn at all.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what website is not allowed. The point is there are websites that parents don't want their children to visit like meatspin and two girls one cup. You know what other websites parents wouldn't want their children to visit? Stores like Google's Play store and Apple's App store. You won't see children banned from them, just the apps in the stores. Yet, someone children can download them and make charges to their parents accounts. Isn't that odd that's somehow allowed?
There is stuff that they consider ok for 12,13, 15,16 and some that are 18+ stuff), for the over 18 at account creation, simply enter 1/1/1990.
Click to expand...
Like what? Sex and violence? If a parent is into this then I'd imagine what applies to a 7 year old would also apply to a 16 year old. I'd like to know what content is OK for a 16 year old and what isn't for a 7 year old?
 
DukenukemX said:
If privacy is a joke then why are they passing laws for age verification? The answer is it isn't. If you really think about it, you'll see that tracking someone online is hard. Especially when the main method to do this is IP's, but since the advent of VPN's and TOR Web Browser, then it became a lot harder to track a person online. Also, multiple people living in a home can share the IP, which again makes it harder. Especially if you're someone who uses a Linux distro or even a custom rom for your Google Pixel phone, then it comes damn near impossible. Especially if you avoid using Google, Apple, and Meta services. Just look at Statcounters "Unknown" at 16.77%. That is an alarming amount of people who can't be tracked online.

As much as you'd want to believe that you can be tracked, but the answer is not very easily. We know this because they're passing laws so you can be tracked like age verification. Stop pretending like there's nothing we can do, as it clearly works.
View attachment 791637
Click to expand...

Why do you have the memory of a goldfish and ask the same question you already asked that I already answered you on? FFS keep up.

kram182 said:
Because everyone/every company wants their slice of the pie/to get paid for it/setting up new API standards/API plugins they control/license etc - for data that's already out there and the government etc already in possession of, should they ever 'want to know who you are'/'target you' - you have a birth certificate/Social Security/ITIN/State ID/driver's license? Can't operate in modern society without it - congrats your DOB/name/identity is in government databases - along with public records that companies can already access. Again, outside of your credit card/purchase/social profiles/data etc (which companies also pay other companies for to access and correlate with their own data or more data that they purchased elsewhere etc)
Click to expand...
 
kram182 said:
Why do you have the memory of a goldfish and ask the same question you already asked that I already answered you on? FFS keep up.
Click to expand...
Honestly he's been doing that the entire thread. When confronted he just ignores it. Might be better to just not engage at this point.
 
LukeTbk said:
australia type laws could become more and more common, here you have an anymous call asking 18+ to an os you control,
Click to expand...
Sure. Now. And, as has been pointed out in this thread, when this inevitably doesn't work, the same people be back screaming FOR THE CHILDREN you can't log on to your computer until you've uploaded your drivers' license and/or a picture of your face.
 
kram182 said:
Why do you have the memory of a goldfish and ask the same question you already asked that I already answered you on? FFS keep up.
Click to expand...
Your answer continues to be baloney. Birth certificate/Social Security/ITIN/State ID/driver's license isn't something I staple to my shirt and given out freely whenever someone wants to see it. You don't keep your Social Security number as a text file on your computer. Hopefully you don't. The government knows where you live based on the mail that gets delivered to your home. But once again, they don't know who your are online. You are anonymous when online. If any of your ID's get leaked online then that's consider identity theft and is a massive problem. Guess what isn't hopefully floating on the internet? Why you think most of those ID's have your birthday on it? Because it's a form of identification.
Tsumi said:
Honestly he's been doing that the entire thread. When confronted he just ignores it. Might be better to just not engage at this point.
Click to expand...
You two come up with μαλάκας and expect to be correct. The kram182 thinks that having physical ID means you've already lost your privilege for anonymity online.
 
DukenukemX said:
Your answer continues to be baloney. Birth certificate/Social Security/ITIN/State ID/driver's license isn't something I staple to my shirt and given out freely whenever someone wants to see it. You don't keep your Social Security number as a text file on your computer. Hopefully you don't. The government knows where you live based on the mail that gets delivered to your home. But once again, they don't know who your are online. You are anonymous when online. If any of your ID's get leaked online then that's consider identity theft and is a massive problem. Guess what isn't hopefully floating on the internet? Why you think most of those ID's have your birthday on it? Because it's a form of identification.

You two come up with μαλάκας and expect to be correct. The kram182 thinks that having physical ID means you've already lost your privilege for anonymity online.
Click to expand...
No, you just respond to specific phrases you don't agree with with memes and videos without addressing the entire post in context. And to you, everyone who disagrees or corrects you are saying the same things so you lump us all into one entity even when we have completely different points, thus making your responses nonsense.
 
kram182 said:
ISP records correlated with your address on file
Click to expand...
VPN
You don't actually realize the world you actually live in
Click to expand...
That's my line. Again, why pass a law that's clearly for tracking people online when it clearly won't do anything for children?
Tsumi said:
No, you just respond to specific phrases you don't agree with with memes and videos without addressing the entire post in context.
Click to expand...
It's my way of helping get my point across.
And to you, everyone who disagrees or corrects you are saying the same things so you lump us all into one entity even when we have completely different points, thus making your responses nonsense.
Click to expand...
You both say a lot and say nothing in the process. You haven't corrected anything, you simply point to a poor example and claim to be correct, which you are not. Once again, why pass these absolutely unnecessary laws? I've proven they're useless at protecting children and even age verification. The only thing age verification is good at is pushing Americans closer to losing our freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the very foundation of American society, and it seems our government is hell bent in removing it.
 
DukenukemX said:
VPN
Click to expand...

https://www.extremetech.com/interne...tent-vpn-logs-help-fbi-catch-internet-stalker

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...sed-service-he-thought-would-hide-him/337545/

https://iapp.org/news/a/your-vpn-could-be-a-privacy-trap-heres-how-to-protect-yourself

DukenukemX said:
Again, why pass a law that's clearly for tracking people online when it clearly won't do anything for children?
Click to expand...

It's been answered, multiple times, learn to read. Or learn to remember what you read. Or stop being intellectually dishonest and playing dumb. Either or.
 
DukenukemX said:
It's my way of helping get my point across.

You both say a lot and say nothing in the process. You haven't corrected anything, you simply point to a poor example and claim to be correct, which you are not. Once again, why pass these absolutely unnecessary laws? I've proven they're useless at protecting children and even age verification. The only thing age verification is good at is pushing Americans closer to losing our freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the very foundation of American society, and it seems our government is hell bent in removing it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for proving my point. I have never cited examples in this thread and have said repeatedly that I do not support this law or any other ID-based ones. Memes are NOT how you have an honest debate. Using those show you're only intent on putting people down.
 
kram182 said:
https://www.extremetech.com/interne...tent-vpn-logs-help-fbi-catch-internet-stalker

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...sed-service-he-thought-would-hide-him/337545/

https://iapp.org/news/a/your-vpn-could-be-a-privacy-trap-heres-how-to-protect-yourself
Click to expand...
Pointing to some bad VPN's doesn't prove your point. Remember when Mullvad VPN was raided in 2023 and police found nothing? Pepperidge farm remembers. Choose your VPN wisely. ZenMate, ExpressVPN, Private Internet Access (PIA), and CyberGhost VPN which are all owned by Kape Technologies, an Israeli company. Something to think about when shopping for a VPN.
It's been answered, multiple times, learn to read. Or learn to remember what you read. Or stop being intellectually dishonest and playing dumb. Either or.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that "privacy is and has been dead". Again, if this were true then why pass laws that are clearly meant to oust you? If something were dead then why beat a dead horse? Once again because it bears repeating, in that these laws DO NOT PROTECT CHILDREN. They don't even do a good job at age verification. Why even have it then?
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1rxt50c/systemd_has_merged_age_verification_measures_into/
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954

Systemd has merged age verification measures into userdb​


https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954
Much of this goes over my head, so I'm hoping to hear some good explanations from people who know what they're talking about.
But I do know that I want nothing to do with this. If I am ever asked to prove my age or identity to access a website or application, my answer will ALWAYS be "actually, I don't really need your site, so you can fuck right off". Sending any kind of signal with personal information that could be used to make user tracking easier is completely out of the question.
So short of the nuclear option of removing systemd entirely, what are practical steps that can be taken to disable/block/bypass this? Is it as simple as disabling/masking a unit? Is there a use case for userdb I should know about before attempting this? Do I need to install a fork instead? Or maybe I'd be better off with a script that poisons age data by randomizing the stored age periodically?
Click to expand...
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
I agree with the quoted text & mirror the sentiment 100%.
Click to expand...
And as others noted, some states are already doing the "required verification" and "Facebook can not be held liable" As the money trail post shows, this is all about Meta trying to divert responsibiliy to be able to freely collect data on children and underage folks so they do not have to actually stop the sex-stortion scams and showing "adult" content to kids on Instagram...

They are then free to do what ever they want and now it is the OS's fault for letting them get to their site...
 
MrGuvernment said:
And as others noted, some states are already doing the "required verification" and "Facebook can not be held liable" As the money trail post shows, this is all about Meta trying to divert responsibiliy to be able to freely collect data on children and underage folks so they do not have to actually stop the sex-stortion scams and showing "adult" content to kids on Instagram...

They are then free to do what ever they want and now it is the OS's fault for letting them get to their site...
Click to expand...
Which is honestly fine. I'm okay with that. Let the control come from the OS side instead of the website because honestly, you can't control the internet. Not without geoblocking, VPN blocking, etc, like in authoritarian countries.

My issue is that the approach is the wrong direction. Instead of making standardized easy to use parental control tools mandatory and thus allowing parents to implement the level of control and blocking they want, governments are trying to lock us out of our devices unless we prove we're eligible to access the unfiltered internet. Meta doesn't want this because it means parents can effectively block Facebook, which is why they're not lobbying for it. Putting the onus on the OS but knowing people will bypass restrictions anyways is exactly what they want- the appearance of having done something without actually doing anything meaningful and thus freeing themselves of liability.
 
If they want to make it fair then the poll from the website should be simple ... no age identification means unrestricted access. Age identification turned on means you limit the content based on the age. That way people who don't give a toss, or are dealing with this stuff their own way, don't see any change at all. Parents who want to take advantage of it then can without having to be tech savvy enough to setup all the other methods.
 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/...-age-gating-isnt-about-kids-its-about-control

Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn’t About Kids, It’s About Control​


When Rep. Leigh Finke spoke last month before the Minnesota House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee to testify against HF1434, a broad-sweeping proposal to age-gate the internet, she began with something disarming: agreement.


“I want to support the basic part of this,” she said, the shared goal of protecting young people online. Because that is not controversial: everyone wants kids to be safe. But HF1434, Minnesota’s proposed age-verification bill, simply won’t “protect children.” It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people to verify users’ identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. As we’ve discussed before, the bill’s definition of speech that lawmakers deem “harmful to minors” is notoriously broad—broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity.


Rep. Finke, an openly transgender lawmaker, next raised a point that her critics have since tried to distort: age-verification laws like the Minnesota bill are already being used to block young LGBTQ+ people from exercising their First Amendment rights to access information that may be educational, affirming, or life-saving. Referencing the Supreme Court case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, she noted that state attorneys general have been “almost jubilant” about the ability to use these laws to restrict queer youth from accessing content. “We know that ‘prurient interest’ could be for many people, the very existence of transgender kids,” she added, referring to the malleable legal standard that would govern what content must be age-gated under the law.


But despite years’ worth of evidence to back her up, Finke has faced a wave of attacks from countless media outlets and religious advocacy groups for her statements. Rep. Finke’s testimony was repeatedly mischaracterized as not having young people’s best interests in mind, when really she was accurately describing the lived reality of LGBTQ+ youth and advocating in support of their access to vital resources and community.


In fact, this backlash proves her point. Beyond attempting to silence queer voices and to scare other legislators from speaking up against these laws, it reveals how age-verification mandates are part of a larger effort to give the government much greater control of what young people are allowed to say, read, or see online.


Rep. Finke was also right that these proposals are bad policy; they prevent all young people from finding community online, and that they violate young people and adults' First Amendment rights.


Why FSC v. Paxton Matters​


Rep. Finke was similarly right to bring up the Paxton case, because beyond the troubling Supreme Court precedent it produced, Texas’s age-verification law also drew eager support from an extraordinary number of amicus briefs from anti-LGBTQ organizations (some even designated hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center).


In FSC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court gave Texas the green light to require age verification for sites where at least one-third of the content is sexual material deemed “harmful to minors,” which generally means explicit sexual content. This ruling, based on how young people do not have a First Amendment right to access explicit sexual content, allows states to enact onerous age-verification rules that will block adults from accessing lawful speech, curtail their ability to be anonymous, and jeopardize their data security and privacy. These are real and immense burdens on adults, and the Court was wrong to ignore them in upholding Texas’ law.


But laws enacted by other states and Minnesota HF 1434 go further than the Texas statute. Rather than restricting young people from accessing sexual content, these proposals expand what the state deems “harmful to minors” to include any speech that may reference sex, sexuality, gender, and reproductive health. But young people have a First Amendment right to both speak on those topics and to access information online about them.


We will continue to fight against all online age restrictions, but bills like Minnesota’s HF 1434, which seek to restrict young people from accessing speech about their bodies, sexuality, and other truthful information, are especially pernicious.


EFF and Rep. Finke are on the same page here: age verification mandates create immense harm to our First Amendment rights, our right to privacy, as well as our online safety and security. These proposals also fully ignore the reality that LGBTQ young people often rely on the internet for information they cannot get elsewhere.


But the Paxton case, and the coalition behind it, illustrates exactly how these laws can be weaponized. They weren’t there just to stand up for young people’s privacy online—they were there to argue that the state has a compelling interest in shielding minors from material that, in practice, often includes LGBTQ content. Ultimately, these groups would like to age-gate not just porn sites, but also any content that might discuss sex, sexuality, gender, reproductive health, abortion, and more.


Using Children as Props to Enact Censorship ​


The coalition of organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of Texas’s age verification law tells us everything we need to know about the true intentions behind legislating access to information online: censorship, surveillance, and control. After all, if the race to age-gate the internet was purely about child safety, we would expect its strongest supporters to be child-development experts or privacy advocates. Instead, the loudest advocates are organizations dedicated to policing sexuality, attacking LGBTQ+ folks and reproductive rights, and censoring anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview.


Below are some of the harmful platforms that the organizations supporting the age-gating movement are advancing, and how their arguments echo in the attacks on Rep. Finke today:


Policing sexuality, bodily autonomy, and reproductive rights​


Many of the organizations backing age-verification laws have spent decades trying to restrict access to accurate sexual health information and reproductive care.


Groups like Exodus Cry, for example, who filed a brief in support of the Texas AG in the SCOTUS case, frame pornography as part of a broader moral crisis. Founded by a “Christian dominionist” activist, Exodus Cry advocates for the criminalization of porn and sex work, and promotes a worldview that defines “sexual immorality” as any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman. Its leadership describes the internet as a battleground in a “pornified world” that has to be reclaimed. Another brief in support of the age-verification law was filed by a group of organizations including the Public Advocate of the United States (an SPLC-designated hate group) and America’s Future. America’s Future is an organization that was formed to “revitalize the role of faith in our society” and fiercely advocates in favor of trans sports bans.


These groups see age-verification laws as attractive solutions because they create a legal mechanism to wall off large swaths of content that merely mentions sex from not only young people but millions of adults, too.


Attacking LGBTQ+ Rights​


Several of the most prominent legal advocates behind age-verification laws have also led the crusade against LGBTQ+ equality. The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information.


The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), for instance (which is another SPLC-designated hate group), built its reputation on litigation aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ protections—including allowing businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples, criminalizing same-sex relationships abroad, and restricting transgender rights.


The internet that these groups envision is one that heavily censors critical and even life-saving LGBTQ+ resources, community, and information.


Then there’s other groups like Them Before Us and Women’s Liberation Front, both of which submitted amici in support of the Texas Attorney General and are devoted to upending LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Them Before Us says it’s “committed to putting the rights and well-being of children ahead of the desires and agendas of adults.” But it’s also running a campaign to “End Obergefell,” the 2015 Supreme Court case that upheld the right to same-sex marriage, and has been on the cutting edge of transphobic campaigning and pseudoscientific fearmongering about IVF and surrogacy. The Women’s Liberation Front, on the other hand, is an organization that has a long track record of supporting transphobic policies such as bathroom bills, bans on gender-affirming healthcare, and efforts to define “sex” strictly as the biological sex assigned at birth.


Through cases like FSC v. Paxton, groups like these three continue to advance a vision of society that creates government mandates to enforce their worldviews over personal freedom, while hiding behind a shroud of concern for children’s safety. But when they also describe LGBTQ+ people as “evil” threats to children and run countless campaigns against their human rights, they are being clear about their intentions. This is why we continue to say: the impact of age verification measures goes beyond porn sites.


Expanding censorship beyond the internet into real-life public spaces​


As we’ve said for years now, the push to age-gate the internet is part of a broader campaign to control what information people can access in public life both on- and offline. Many of the same organizations advancing these proposals claim to be acting on behalf of young people, but their arguments consistently use children as props to justify giving the government more control over speech and information.


Many of the organizations advocating for online age verification have also supported book bans, attacks on DEI policies and education, and efforts to remove LGBTQ+ materials from schools and libraries. Two of the organizations who supported the Texas Attorney General, Citizens Defending Freedom and Manhattan Institute, have led campaigns around the country to “abolish DEI” and ban classical books like “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison from school libraries. These efforts are not different from the efforts to restrict access to the internet—they reflect a broader strategy to restrict access to ideas or information that these groups find objectionable. And they discourage free thought, inquiry, and the ability for people to decide how to live their lives.


These campaigns rely on the same core argument, that certain ideas are inherently dangerous to young people and must therefore be restricted. But that framing misrepresents an important reality: if lawmakers genuinely want to address harms that young people experience online, they should start by listening to young people themselves. When EFF spoke directly with young people about their online experiences, they overwhelmingly rejected restrictions on their access to the internet and came back with nuanced and diverse perspectives. Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target.


Once that principle—that certain ideas are inherently dangerous—is accepted, the internet, once a symbol of free expression, connection, creativity, and innovation, becomes the next logical target.


This also wouldn’t be the first time a vulnerable group is used as a prop to advance internet censorship laws. We’ve seen this playbook during the debate over FOSTA/SESTA, where many of the same advocates claimed to speak for trafficking victims/survivors and sex workers, while pushing legislation that ultimately censored online speech and harmed the very communities it invoked. It’s a familiar pattern: you invoke a vulnerable group, frame certain speech as a threat, and use that as a way to expand government control over the flow of information. And as we said in the fight against FOSTA: if lawmakers are serious about addressing harms to particular communities, they should start by talking to those communities. This means that lawmakers seeking to address online harms to young people should be talking to young people, not groups who claim their interests.


Rep. Finke Was Not Radical. She Was Right.​


The Paxton case, and the coalition backing age verification laws in the U.S., shows us exactly why the messaging around these laws draws superficial support from parents and lawmakers. But we’ve heard the quiet part said out loud before. Marsha Blackburn, a sponsor of the federal Kids Online Safety Act, has said that her goal with the legislation was to address what she called “the transgender” in society. When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.


When lawmakers and advocacy groups frame queer existence itself as a threat to young people, age-verification laws become ideological enforcement instead of regulatory policy.


In defending free speech, privacy, and the right of young people to access truthful information about themselves, Rep. Leigh Finke was not radical—she was right. She was warning that broad, ideologically driven laws will be used to erase, silence, and isolate young people under the banner of child protection.


What’s at stake in the fight against age verification is not just a single bill in a single state, or even multiple states, for that matter. It’s about whether “protecting children” becomes a legal pretext for embedding government control over the internet to enforce specific moral and religious judgments—judgments that deny marginalized people access to speech, community, history, and truth—into law.


And more people in public office need the courage of Rep. Finke to call this out.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top