For those interested on the question of age verification and GNU/Linux: be aware that Systemd v261-rc1 was recently released. It now implements an optional birth date field in the JSON user database (see second item under “Other changes”).
The implementation of this field was prompted by age-verification or -attestation laws.
Yes, right next to the fields for your full name and address, all of which are optional. It’s a total nothingburger.
I found the clueless rube
Did you ignore the comment in the github where it, and I quote “Stores the user’s birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc.”. Yes it is optional NOW, but this is in preparation of laws that make it legally Mandatory. Don’t down play this.
Miss me with this “slippery slope” BS.
Having a standardized place to store the DOB is a good thing and it should have been there even before these laws.
And if some users want to comply with those laws, then they should have a way to do it.
If anybody actually tries to make this a hard requirement (which isn’t going to happen), then you can bitch about it at that time.
This. If someone would force it, people make a fork without that bullshit
Lol who tf are you, the bitching police? The judge of grievances? Oh thank you for permitting me to talk about things i find problematic great king, so generous of you
California’s AB-1043 already passed, so we get to bitch about it now. Thanks for your support.
Oh so you are now forced to fill in the field?
What you quote is the justification why a new field should be added. You can’t just say e.g. a Wardrobe number should be added without justifying it, otherwise it won’t be accepted. You can say a Wardrobe number should be added because recent scientific developments suggest that some wardrobes open up new worlds, so it became necessary to extend the address field.
This doesn’t mean systemd would enforce anything or go into the politics of certain jurisdictions. It just enables distros to use this field, and it’s up to the distros what they want to do with it.
You don’t have such fields in openrc, runit or S6.
Those options don’t do the same things as SystemD though
Just like the room number when using the adduser command
Yeah just because they build cages for kids in the desert near the border doesn’t mean anything’s going to happen! It’s just optional infrastructure in case you want to put your kids in a cage. It’s totally voluntary.
There are genuinely useful use cases for it, and unlike what you suggest it is completely harmless.
Is everyone ignoring the direct quote in the orginal post that is referring to laws (California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025)) that are going to force you to verify your age?
No; I think these bills are terrible and should be resisted. But the outrage about (what is effectively) a database on your pc to store information that itself doesn’t do anything is ridiculous.
If abyone wants or needs to implement a system like that (could be for work,for example), that’s perfectly fine. What isn’t fine is the existence of the laws in the first place, and they shouldn’t be resisted with (just) technology.
So you support adding a field for your SSN too? It’s just going to be stored in a database on your PC so why not??
Yeah? I don’t use most of the boxes, that one would also remain blank just like the age box.
Yeah, and I’m never going to use it, just like I don’t use any of the other existing fields - it doesn’t matter.
The California law does not require verification. Only attestation.
For now…
Not invested enough to be for or against it personally; just curious…
What are the user-beneficial use cases for it?
I could imagine a parental control setup using this information, for example. Linux is really behind in this regard and it’s time it started catching up IMO.
That makes sense. Papa having control over what junior sees is probably not very functionally different from Big Brother having control over what an individual sees, lol