Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

Senal

@ Senal @programming.dev

Posts
0
Comments
321
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Inside the Systemd Age Verification Debate: Developer Responds to Criticism

    Jump

  • That's a sound argument, mostly (in the quote, i mean)

    If the technical implementation of how they would try and force age verification was the problem people were concerned about, this take would be very useful.

    Physical locks on glass doors are easy to bypass, doesn't mean you won't get shafted if someone just so happens to catch you in the act.

    If third party age verification is legally mandated the implementation being technically difficult (or easy to bypass) doesn't stop it from being illegal.

    Being a condescending prick works better if the position you take is unassailable, you do you though.

  • Someone Forked Systemd to Strip Out Its Age Verification Support

    Jump

  • You did not, points for effort though.

    I'll try to make it simpler.

    Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍

    Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎

    if you suggest something is a fallacy , that's a claim you have made.

    edit : emojis for visual cues

    edit : changed no description to be more accurate

  • Someone Forked Systemd to Strip Out Its Age Verification Support

    Jump

  • Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?

    I know, right ?

    If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.

    Absolutely, and if you'd asked for proof of their accusation you'd be correct in this instance.

    They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.

    They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn't.

    You provided your own accusation:

    You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?

    And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.

    You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.

    Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:

    You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.

    I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.

    It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of "does this field, on it's own, constitute age verification".

    The point most people are trying to make is that it's a part of a larger context.

  • Someone Forked Systemd to Strip Out Its Age Verification Support

    Jump

  • No, they don't.

    You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.

    edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.

  • Optical illusion

    Jump

  • Ah yes, the two genders, completely sane "piles of guns" owner and raging psychopath.

    Nuance doesn't exist, accidents don't happen and a mostly overlooked societal mental health crisis is woke DEI propaganda.

  • Google tipped off authorities to illicit images in Canadian doctor's account, search warrants say

    Jump

  • Ah, this is probably my fault.

    I'm not the person you were replying to so i wasn't really arguing any of these points, i just a saw the request and knew of an example, so i provided it.

    Just in case this was for me specifically I’ll answer:

    Yea I have zero issue with the fact that accounts with pictures of children’s genitals on them should be referred to the the authorities.

    Pictures of children’s genitals aren’t inherently CSAM, there are plenty of parents and family members with entirely innocent pictures of their kids on their phones.

    There are examples of this in the reported cases of false positives leading to bad outcomes, this is easily searchable.

    I'm not saying to not do anything, I’m saying blanket reporting is an ineffective brute-force approach.

    If people want privacy, host the pictures locally.

    In theory yes, in practice, not so much.

    on-device scanning exists and is in use/has been in use on phones, examples of this are also easily searchable.

    When you’re storing images with a cloud provider. They become responsible for the images that they store. If it’s a photo of a child’s genitals and that’s illegal for them to have those images on their servers and they need to protect themselves.

    The need for legal protection is valid, scanning cloud uploaded photo's is a user privacy nightmare, but expected.

    End to end encryption (where only the users device can decrypt and see the photo) would probably stand up legally but then they wouldn't be able to use the cloud photo's to make money.

    The problem comes with the recognition of illegal and the way it's handled.

  • Google tipped off authorities to illicit images in Canadian doctor's account, search warrants say

    Jump

  • Google tipped off authorities to illicit images in Canadian doctor's account, search warrants say

    Jump

  • Surge in Systemd forks after the latest changes

    Jump

  • !remindme 1 year

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • That make sense, I see why you have the list now.

    It's an escape clause for when you don't understand what's going on, just claim "Zionist false equivalence" and you don't have to actually figure out what's going on.

    I have to say, I find that terribly disappointing.

    "Everything I don't understand is Zionism" is almost as bad as "everything I don't like is woke".

    There is no Zionism or any equivalence of any kind in my replies. If you wish to try again, my questions are in the first reply (where they have been the whole time), if not, no need to try and drag it into something unrelated.

    I'll give you a hint, its the parts that end with '?'

    Bonus points for any section you can point at that has any Zionism or False equivalence.

    Im out for now, you got this!

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • There was no discussion to begin with, that would requires you to understand enough to respond to the text being presented, there had been no evidence of that so far.

    I can and have been engaging just fine, you seem to be the one having trouble with this particular interaction.

    As I stated initially ( it's still there, feel free to review ) the terms themselves aren't the red flag, it's the approach to using them.

    I did engage you in earnest, with my contextual perspective and then with questions somewhat related to the subject.

    You went with a slight as a response, didn't read the rest of it and then proceeded to guess incorrectly multiple times about information easily available.

    If you don't want to read, that's fine, suggesting reading materials for a context you don't understand however, makes you seem incompetent.

    I demanded nothing, which again you would know if you had read or understood the response.

    I don't think further communication will be to anyone's benefit, you've shown no indication of being able to follow along with basic conversation.

    Not a single response has been relevant to the text to which it was replying.

    I'd be genuinely surprised if you could actually compile an OS. Which means your opinion on related topics is suspect as far as I am concerned.

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • I don’t see edit markers on either of your responses, so I must conclude you had no technical questions regarding this breach of commit.

    That would be a natural conclusion given that neither you nor i have made any reference to that article until just now, but congratulations, a correct conclusion still counts...i suppose.

    That article has no bearing on any of my questions or any position I’ve taken, which you would know if you had read/understood anything that has happened so far.

    If/when you do, let me know. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on esr’s essay on how to ask smart questions

    Similarly , that essay is for technical, code-related questions, of which i have asked none.

    Keep going though, I’m interested to see if you figure out what’s happening.

    You've got this, i believe in you!

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • ........

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • If you can't understand it, chances are you can't answer it so this saves us both some time.

    I was half-hoping someone with a big "I subscribe to this specific and obscure political ideology" would be expecting questions/discussion.

    Then again, that's on me, i did see the big red flag warning at the beginning and went ahead anyway.

    The flags are there for a reason i suppose, worth a try.

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • I'm not even who you're replying to but this is too interesting not to at least try to ask.

    As this is probably going to be our first and last interaction I'll preface this by saying we probably share a lot of the same values but it seems our approaches are different.

    So here goes.

    1. That's a hard pass from me. As a concept i mean.

    If you require me to read a set of rules to interact with you that's an immediate red flag for me, regardless of how reasonable they are.

    I'm not suggesting you stop requiring them, i'm just saying i'm also free to ignore them.

    That being said i did actually read them on this occasion, i have no compulsion to abide by them, it just so happens that they mostly align with how i interact in general. That probably doesn't seem like much of a distinction, but it is to me.

    As a side note, I'm a stickler for word choice and a solid 90% of people i've ever interacted with who claim to dislike pedantic grammar police are actually salty because they are being called out logical incorrectness in their word choice or sentence structure.

    This is purely anecdotal and i am in no way accusing you of this, but for me it's an orange flag to see something like that.

    1. That's fair, i'd expect nothing less.
    2. This is the interesting one, i don't disagree on the principle but i'm interested to see how far through this you have thought.

    As i said to the person i replied to, the issue here isn't the field itself so much as the intention behind it.

    If you're far enough down the technological self reliance rabbit-hole to be compiling your own OS then you probably aren't too fussed about dropping a few services if they mandate age verification, (the third party kind, not solvable by self compilation).

    As a hypothetical. let's assume somebody technically competent (but common sense deficient) has a visit from the good idea fairy and convinces someone in power to mandate age verification at the ISP level.

    Is that a "stop using the internet" kind of moment or a "pirate ISP" kind of thing, perhaps a Cuba style local internet type deal or something else entirely ?

    1. That's a big ask for the everyday consumer, as it stands at least.

    Does this way of thinking also address trust in the code itself or does that require you to read and understand all of the code being compiled, including libraries and other supply chain artifacts ?

    Does it extend to hardware as well, with things like IME, PSP and perhaps DASH all the trust in the world won't counter internal hardware based attacks ?

    Not that i'm saying to do nothing, just wondering where you sit on this subject.

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • The premise for why it's being added however, subjectively does.

    Which you know.

    Also full address and name aren't mandatory, so it's not really a good comparison.

    edit: I just realised i also replied to the same comment from you elsewhere in this thread.

  • Systemd adds age verification

    Jump

  • I'm sure you understand the issue isn't the actual field but the premise behind why it's being added.

  • AI still doesn't work very well, businesses are faking it, and a reckoning is coming

    Jump