165
submitted 4 days ago by Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Some of you need to watch this video, and hang your head in shame.

Dylan Taylor has been receiving constant harassment, including threats to his life and safety, for actions done collectively by SystemD. The article by Sam Bent was explictly mentioned as part of the harassment campaign, and rightfully so.

I don't think enough people realize that this is catastrophically bad. It'll discourage people from becoming open source developers, it'll discourage people from using Linux, and it'll discourage legislators from taking the Linux community seriously.

If you ever wished ill upon another human being for complying with a relatively inconsequential law, you are better off never touching a computer again. The Linux community has collectively gone so far beyond what is acceptable here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 79 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I’m going to bullet my thoughts on this whole thing because I’m annoyed by the general response, and the implementation as well:

  • I don’t wish harm on the dev and I don’t dislike them. I don’t even know them
  • Death threats are ridiculous; that’s the working class attacking itself again
  • That said, I want to know what compelled this dev to preemptively implement this field not in 1 but in 2 separate PRs
  • Both the field and the law itself do not serve the user at all; it’s a bullshit vague law that is using children as cover—again (I’m old enough to know how this game works)
  • I’ve always viewed Linux as the rebel among all of the corporate slop we have to constantly dodge, so it is super gross when I see changes in Linux that were made to appease laws built and pushed by fascist tech companies and governments
  • Did the dev even open a line of discussion anywhere, or was the PR supposed to be used for that?
  • What’s his motivation? Money? Fame? I’ve been a programmer for 20 years and I’d never jump on a chance to add something that aligns with laws I think are unethical dog shit—especially in the Linux space where the whole goal is to not be Windows
  • I’m a bit frustrated with the casual “what’s the big deal?” mindset that a lot of people I’ve encountered have about this. Are we not living through the same timeline where the US has fallen under the control of a fascist regime that is being eagerly assisted by Meta, Apple, Microsoft and a ton of other massive corporations? How do people not see that this is the beginning of the wedge? And let’s say it peters out and nothing else happens. I’m not going to be ashamed of the fact that I was a squeaky wheel over it because I’ve seen how these things go. You follow the money and suddenly the bigger picture comes into focus. Why on earth a meager single little dev would implement this, unprompted, is just beyond my reasoning.

This reminds me of when Guillermo Rauch from Vercel praised Trump multiple times. Bro, you’re not Tim Cook. You’re not Ellison, Zuck, or Musk. You’re not even on their level. You’re not going to get on their radar. I have PTSD from fellow tech folks being weirdly aligned with fascism and this whole dumb thing is giving me that vibe again. I don’t think this is that 1:1, but this is like the metal scene. You have to dodge the fascists that seem to weirdly permeate corners of the culture. People that refuse and get annoyed by right-wing labels, but still help right-wing grifters, are their own unique brand of pathetic.

[-] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago

I'll be upset when a cloud-connected Linux component prevents the system from working unless the real name and birth date fields have been verified

until then, this is just as inert as the real name field which has been there for decades, and far less useful for surveillance than the real name field which has been there for decades

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Except this field has been implemented explicitly for this age verification laws. If this was for some random birthday greeting when you open terminal, i think fewer people would be up in arms. context is everything.

if this moron implements compliance with laws that record a birthday today, what is stopping him adding 3rd party verification of id tomorrow? So far his track record is corporate bootlicker. You cannot trust projects where this guy is a contributer to

[-] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago

what is stopping him

The pull request approval process? It's quite easy to recognize that one change is harmless and another is not. The slope is not THAT slippery.

I completely understand objecting to the systemd change, I also object, but acting like the fascists have already won is a bit crazy.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

No, let's wait till we're at the bottom of the slope. Then start objecting.

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

It is slippery, I have described the process UK is taken here https://piefed.social/comment/10693725

[-] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

it would be very interesting to see that attempt

but Poettering has already said that functionality doesn't belong in systemd so I'm not sure where anyone would raise such a PR

seems like an Ubuntu/RedHat level distribution design to pull in a brand new age-verification / mass-surveillance component, or maybe modify an existing telemetry component

the birth date field only made it into systemd because it's user metadata that is consistent with what is already stored there, whereas surveillance does not

for now, at least

again, I'd be very interested to see what happens with follow-up PRs

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago

Poettering closed the pr that was reverting this age field. What happens is adding more and more control in the future to conform to whatever idiotic laws someone might make. Should we then also implement a filter for what you type online to conform with Russian law about calling their war "SVO"? Its their law after all, so why not make the rest of the world conform? Its already years older then this age verification?

[-] jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

rejecting the revert is completely separate from accepting additional age-check / mass-surveillance PRs, you know this and you are being willfully ignorant

I would be very upset and very surprised if hypothetical follow-up PRs were merged into systemd, and I'm betting they will be rejected

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago

How is it different? The ready acceptance of additional fields specifically for age verification is clearly proof enough that any further bullshit will be accepted just as quickly. PR description clearly outlines it is for the sole purpose of age verification...

[-] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Whats wrong with Age verification? its fine to verify age, the problem with the age verification laws is the issue of how age is being verified. In this case its fine because its local first and privacy respecting.

[-] Ravell@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 days ago

Age verification requires doxxing yourself in order to actually work, and if it doesn't require doxxing yourself then it won't work and it can be bypassed, so pointless capitulation granting ease into more authoritarian forms in the future. You don't see why any actually functional age verification is a problem while fascists are trying to control all the digital architecture?

[-] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

No it doesnt. If I ask are you 18 and you reply no/yes that is verifying your age without doxing you. This field is for when the user is NOT admin on the machine. This field would be filled out by the parent when they're setting up their kids machine.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

What is the point of a field like this if you can literally put anything in it you want? Your not verifying anything. The next logical step is to add proof.

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 3 points 4 days ago

Its not suitable for proving your age. Its adding a field which is a stepping stone to future gating and more control over something that isn't even applicable to most of the users of the system.

Why not then add a live filter to ensure that you don't call Putler's war in Ukraine and call it "SVO" as you are supposed to? Its the law over there and many years older than this one. People already have gone to prison for not complying with it. But hey lets make that a part of linux too. Its law after all... Do you see how stupid it is to blindly comply to something that doesn't even apply to you?

[-] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

How is it not suitable? If I setup my kids age and an app wants to use the portal to check if he is over 18 and it returns no. That suitable age verification and its privacy respecting. Which is what is being suggested.

[-] StealthLizardDrop@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

There are already parental control packages exist in the Linux infrastructure which are not tied to low level modules such as systemd https://github.com/biglinux/big-parental-controls if you want, you can install it. Its fork is available in the Arch ecosystem for example that mentions it complies with the BR implementation (https://github.com/jersobh/arch-parental-controls)

  • This is entirely optional package that claims to be privacy orientated (I haven't tried it) that a system administrator can install if they wish.
  • My router, an Asus one has parental controls settings already
  • My ISP router, bog standard one has parental controls settings already
  • My ISP account has parental controls settings already at account level, if Ia m not technical enough, I can call them and ask them to set it up
  • My phone provider has parental controls

Why do I need MORE parental controls shoved down my throat when I do not desire it nor wish for it? But this time in a core component of alot of linux distributions.

Oh and before you tell me "but ExoticCherryPigeon, its an optional field", sure, but here is the example of the slippery slope curtsey of UK:

Take a look at the history of this act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_age_verification_in_the_United_Kingdom
We are now at the point where I need to use a CC to tell some 3rd party that I want a wank.

And what else is happening now? They are suing websites not based in UK! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023#Enforcement, but that's not all, although not at the law stage, there are some talks about also now restricting VPN's https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/uk-government-says-it-may-age-restrict-or-limit-childrens-vpn-use-following-new-consultation.

A lot of websites also not based in UK jurisdiction have simply self censored UK users before they get ISP level blocked.

If this is not an example of a slippery slope, I don't know what is!

TL;DR tools already exist, we do not need more tools that will be a privacy nightmare

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Don't be logical. You're supposed to cry fascist and hurl slippery-slope fallacies like this is the Reichstag Fire.

[-] Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago

Are we not living through the same timeline where the US has fallen under the control of a fascist regime that is being eagerly assisted by Meta, Apple, Microsoft and a ton of other massive corporations?

Because the real fight is not on the internet or computers.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 19 points 4 days ago

It's one battlefront of many, and a fairly significant one. As we've become on online society, computer software has come to encode human rights to expression and privacy. Those rights are worth fighting for.

[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 9 points 4 days ago

The real fight is on multiple fronts.

[-] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 9 points 4 days ago

What I’ve learned is that it’s basically impossible to convince people that the only real way to solve this is violent revolution.

[-] ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

People protesting (legally and peacefully) have been targeted based on social media accounts. This is closing the gap to allow similar fascist behavior on an even more personal level.

[-] Ravell@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago

But it probably realistically has to be organized on it, since that is the global communication network..

[-] liuther9@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Death threats are understamdable cause his move makes damage to huge amount of people. It is like a terrorism

this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
165 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

64059 readers
1 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS