Not really, the microsoft asshole that coded systemd wants chips on hardware for linux just like 10/11. He’s going to help fuck linux the same way they fucked windows.
Comment on Colorado proposing Bill to move age verification to Operating System rather than web site
Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
This is getting ridiculous.
Linux is the only reasonable choice anymore.
imrighthere@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Bro he worked for Microsoft for four years after working for Red Hat for fourteen and then left to create Amutable, and no offense, but I don’t see his goals for Amutable to be about trying to force everyone to use his solution as much as giving groups who use massive numbers of Linux servers an option for something they can more securely lock down and ensure hasn’t been fucked with.
This is just FUD fearmongering, especially considering how small the company is. He isn’t forcing the entire ecosystem to adopt his ideas.
imrighthere@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
If you want to trust the pedomericans, that’s your problem.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Dude Poettering is literally Guatemalan by birth, grew up in Brazil, and lives in Germany. Amutable is based out of fucking Berlin!
Stop reaching.
“Guys will do literally anything but
go to therapyuse systemd.”
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
You might need help. If you’re unwilling to seek help, then at least learn to code and, you know, read the code.
dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 17 hours ago
Systemd is so much easier to use, absolutely was not a mistake.
floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Linux won’t be legal in Colorado if they pass this. You’ll need an account with some age-policing corporation to be able to use a computing device.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Not defend Democrats too much here, but they clearly have far less of a habit of doing this than the Republicans, even if they do enforce things quite selectively when it comes to actual leftists while letting Nazis run around with seeming impunity.
Colorado has been a solidly Blue state since the W. Bush years, and even then, it was pretty split down the middle with just over half going to Bush.
Further, the two main sponsors of the bill are both Democrats.
Once again, not saying Democrats aren’t guilty of selective enforcement, just pointing out that they’re far less likely to do so (or at least less likely to do so against conservatives, for genuine leftists it seems up for debate).
Now, that also means nothing in context to how other politicians can use this kind of legislation negatively, even if the writers and sponsors truly have the best of intentions. Democrats had the best intentions when it came to the PATRIOT Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as well, and way back then folks like me were saying “this seems pretty dangerous, especially if we ever have a despot take control of the country and the levers for these tools” which clearly has come to pass.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
How do you know what their intentions were?
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Well, not all of them, obviously. Yet, for example, I tend to think Joe Biden actually did have good intentions considering the bulk of the PATRIOT Act was based on his prior legislation in the 90s, his Omnibus Counterterrorism Act.
People who were more clearly war hawks like Hillary Clinton? Probably a lot less likely to have had great intentions.
Yet others, like Ron Wyden, who has been a consistent critic of the out of control national security state and voted against military intervention in Iraq in 2002 also voted for the PATRIOT Act. He also spent a great deal of time trying to amend the PATRIOT Act as well.
DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 1 day ago
Are they going to check people’s PCs at the state borders as they move in then?
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
hector@lemmy.today 18 hours ago
The courts should strike it down, I don’t have faith they will side with the constitution, but it’s clearly unconstititional and beyond the authority of the state as well, in the realm of interstate commerce which is explicitly given to the feds, whom can’t be trusted either obviously.
But the 1st amendment is clearly invalidating this, forcing people to identify themselves to groups that will record everything they say or do and sell it to everyone, including the government, that will chill speech, and groups will punish people for their speech.
Too bad scotus is all in on punishing people for speech though.
Attacker94@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I don’t think it will be cut and dry on state vs federal, although if we follow trends it will get shutdown because the feds love abusing the commerce and elastic clause. And I’m not overly familiar with the Colorado constitution, but the actual text isn’t actually that invasive, it makes no requirements on data collection, it only requires for it to be obtained somehow, which could be self reporting ala parental controls, it only requires that once the data is obtained that they must provide an age bracket and only and age bracket to services that request it and only services that request it.
hector@lemmy.today 11 hours ago
The very act of forcing it to be collected chills freedom of speech. Leaving it undefined how it’s done should make the law more likely to get overturned not less.
Knowing your age was collected, and is stored somewhere, connected to your computer, and that everything done on that computer can then be connected back to that positive ID, chills speech, as much as they might try to betray the bill of rights with this mealy mouthed attempt to surrender us to Tech.