this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
1484 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

86110 readers
3456 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alakey@piefed.social 420 points 1 month ago (10 children)

See you in a year or 2.

Play as old as times:

  1. Company announces garbage change
  2. People freak out
  3. Company says ok we will only do half of the garbage
  4. People calm down and forget
  5. Company later does the rest of the garbage
  6. Nobody cares because half of it is already there
[–] Tim_Bisley@piefed.social 211 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Foot in the door technique is a timeless way to get what you want. People seem oblivious to it.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hear frogs experience the same phenomenon with hot water.

[–] new_guy@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Actually they only stay in the boiling water if their nervous system is impaired

[–] xylol@leminal.space 28 points 1 month ago

Good thing humans dont have nervous systems

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean it makes total sense the minute you think about it at all.

  • some middle managers year end goals include this unpalatable feature
  • they release it
  • public freaks out
  • pr walks it back a bit
  • that managers back at work the week after trying to get that feature in because they need to justify the work they just did on it for better compensation

It's the same with laws.

It's very hard to get the electorate united to oppose something but if they manage to unite and oppose a bill the lobbyists are back at work on Monday pushing it by a different name.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

100% Microslop.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Are you implying that CA regulators do exactly what disgusting corporations do?!? I am shocked sir!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 206 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children)

It’s called “parenting.” Yes, it’s harder these days with the internet and literally everything “right there.” But it’s still your job as a parent.

ANYTIME ANYONE imposes restrictions “for the children” - there’s something nefarious going on. If it’s a politician-they are looking to build a database for $. If it’s your priest-he’s banging the alter boy after ccd, or hates himself so much for being gay he’s lashing out at the lgbtq community. If it’s a company-they’ve either been threatened into doing it or more likely are on the take with a fat payday. If it’s a developer adding it into Linux, they should expect fierce skepticism and backlash from the community.

It’s NEVER about the children. It’s always an alternative motive. If they actually cared about kids, they’d make sure they were fed at school, they’d invest in their education, or they’d invest into social programs to help out those less fortunate.

[–] Zanz@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The california law isn't actually age verification. It is unchecked age assertion at the operating system level. He is also there specifically for the parents to fill out.When a new device is purchased. I have no doubts.It will be misused and lead to age verification in the OS with a third party verifying the age, but that isnt want the bill is now

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Everything you said is correct, but at the same time: "We're not driving off a cliff ^(yet)^, we're just moving in for a closer look."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

I don't think it's any coincidence that this is occurring at the same time companies like Palantir are signing government contracts left and right and mega-sized data centers are sprouting up all over the country.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 143 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Tbh, this is just a massive stack of misguidedness.

First, look at what the original law does:

  • OS needs to know the age.
  • OS itself doesn't do anything with the age
  • OS needs to provide the age to apps and services asking for it
  • Apps and services need to block content based on the age provided with the OS
  • If the OS doesn't provide an age, apps and services have to block as if the user was a toddler

Removing the requirement for the OS to provide an age doesn't change anything at all, because someone running an OS that doesn't provide an age will just be blocked everywhere. That's not a solution, that's a joke to appease idiots who don't know what the law does.

This is just as misguided as the backlash against systemd who added an age field to the user account to allow people to be still able to access age-restricted content.

The actually relevant part that people should be combatting is the requirement for apps and services to do age verification using the OS-provided age. The OS age field doesn't matter.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wish people actually read the california law, it's rather short, and covers a lot of the "gotchas" people are coming up with (e.g. No it doesn't apply to servers).

I don't like age verification laws (Especially since I live in a jurisdiction with one already in effect) but at least argue against the law itself rather than a strawman version people heard about via social media.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 119 points 1 month ago (3 children)

How about the government focus on taking rights away from people who have actually harmed kids, like I don't know, maybe a giant pedophile ring in plain sight? Instead the focus on taking rights from everyone because someone, sometime, in the future harm a child.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 52 points 1 month ago (1 children)

its not even about "protecting the innocent" is about snooping on potential dissidents/ threats to the status quo of the govt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] imhungry@leminal.space 22 points 1 month ago

Because it's not about protecting children, obviously.

When someone with certain personality problems tells blatant lies, they are really only trying to convince themselves. You exist only as an introject inside their minds, you are not real to them, it does not matter if you don't believe them because it doesn't need to make sense to you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 112 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

I’m a DevOps engineer and my employer runs a lot of Linux instances in AWS. I’d love for these politicians to explain to me how age verification of Linux web servers should work for auto-scaling environments where instances are spun up and terminated automatically based on traffic volume. I’d also like to know if I should be using the age of our CEO, the age of our company (thanks to Citizens United), or something else.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I'd like to see them pair a bluetooth headset to a phone.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Obviously corporations just become exempt from the law. And any laws, why* not.

[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 month ago

Obviously uhhhh uhhhhhhh put your ID in a GitHub secret and uhhhhhh social security number and uhhhhhh

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Also, is each docker container a "computer" of its own? After all, I could use different distro base images!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 96 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Fuck age verification, fuck it all to hell. Not for Linux or any other OS or device.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I think that the major current closed-source OSes today are busily harvesting all the data they can anyway, and the vendors probably don't care much about also grabbing age, but stuff like, oh...is it illegal under this law to distribute proprietary versions of older OSes now? Like, classic MacOS, say. That's definitely not open-source. And Apple is not going to go back and do a new release of classic MacOS to add age verification to it. But...there's still some old software that you need classic MacOS to run. So...is it illegal to distribute essential software required to run classic MacOS software in California as of the middle of next year?

I mean, you might be infringing on copyright as well, but Apple may be okay with people copying classic MacOS around, as they can't really make any money off it today. But this is the State of California, not Apple, that would act here.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 80 points 1 month ago (3 children)

How about they spend their time revamping parental controls instead? The age gate stuff is clear about user data collection and nothing else.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because they don't give a single fuck about the kids, unless they're pedos fucking kids, then they give all the fucks.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iuseasahibtw@ani.social 67 points 1 month ago (8 children)

It’s being exempt because the Government can’t enforce this requirement on FOSS. Linux isn’t managed by a corporation and I don’t think people realize this yet.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 47 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The most pedophilic government in history desperately needs to know if your children are on the computer

... For reasons

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] brokenwing@discuss.tchncs.de 46 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Install a router/device based content filter if you need to block children from accessing porn.

[–] CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Considering things that are, or could be considered as, porn are everywhere from Reddit to Wikipedia, that doesn't fix the issue. But I agree, this is something for parents to deal with, not legislation.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

It has nothing to do with children at all.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SirMaple__@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 month ago
[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Wild they still play the "think of the children" card while ignoring the Epstein files.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] timestatic@feddit.org 36 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For a moment I freaked out that they were only gonna exclude Linux and not open source in general but it seems they exclude based on the license based on this article which is a good thing. The dozens of OpenBSD and FreeBSD users may rest safely now

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 month ago

This is like winning a small fight and continuing to march on to Moscow on the winter.

They’ll keep whittling rights down until everything you do is logged with your ID and is whitelisted for your consumption (and I mean whitelisted by rich white list of folks who have the power).

Anything LGBTQ will be blocked as controversial. And teaching they don’t like will be hidden. Was slavery bad? “Well, that’s controversial. The Europeans did nothing but civilize those savages don’t you know! And our wealth justifies the whole thing!”

[–] teft@piefed.social 29 points 1 month ago (10 children)

So they're basically admitting that they don't need this for any computer since if you don't need it for open source why would you need it for closed source? You think kids don't know how to download and install linux? If I could do it with floppies and a book in the 90s then kids today can do it with a USB image and LLM assistance.

But in reality they'll probably just wait for a few years and try and push it through again like how they do with most shitty legislation.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Kaligalis@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

I guess, California is killing Windows without knowing.

[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The proposed amendment specifically states: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.

That's one way to encourage people to move to open source software

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 19 points 1 month ago

The controversy became particularly heated after reports suggested platforms like SteamOS could still fall under the law due to their ties to proprietary application ecosystems.

Ehhh. I think that'd be a hard argument to make. I mean, the OS is open-source. You can download it and modify it and reinstall it or whatever. Sure, it runs Steam, which is proprietary, but so does any other GNU/Linux distro.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SteamOS

The core operating system is free and open-source software, while the Steam client remains proprietary.

Like, the only way in which SteamOS differs from another Linux distro is that Valve, which makes the proprietary client, also happens to be distributing the OS.

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

Enforcing it on android/apple/windows/steamos/chromeos is still problem tho.

Tho I do wonder how they handle chromeos. Do each student have to put their age every year?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Does this not just defeat the purpose of this bill? My god the people are so fucking stupid.

[–] Archr@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

It would still affect Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jjlinux@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Wao, I am gladly surprised by this. I would have never thought this would be possible, yet here we are.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Under the original law, operating systems would be required to request a user’s age or birth date during device setup, then expose an “age bracket signal” to apps and app stores. The law, which defined brackets such as “under 13,” “13–15,” “16–17,” and “18+,” immediately raised questions about how such requirements would apply to decentralized, open-source software ecosystems.

I kind of wonder what software running as a service on Windows is supposed to identify itself as if it's non-interactively downloading software.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›