Post #1745055
2026-03-24 13:20 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@Eldritch@piefed.world 2026-03-24 13:40
I can synpathize with the devs as they are simply taking the minimal steps they can. To avoid being targeted by these failing states. But yeah, what's this guys story. Someone suddenly contributing so narrowly to such a broad slate of projects isn't common.
-
@Pika@sh.itjust.works 2026-03-24 16:09
No, I disagree. It is not one person's doing. That is the deflection. I will not downplay the effect of this by saying they are the only one involved. Every maintainer so far that has locked or approved any changes that they did are equally at fault here. In fact, one of those linked articles even stated that the primary reason they locked it is because they didn't like the amount of coverage it got. This is a failure on the community as a whole, not the individual. edit for clarification: By failure, I'm talking more on projects that are humoring it and actually going through with it without considering the potential side effects of just blanket applying that. Currently considering that a handful of these are locked or posted as we don't know if we're going to be doing this yet, I haven't quite put them in that same sector yet, but it's rapidly approaching it.
-
@pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 2026-03-25 10:44
If we're going to blame one person, Zuckerberg comes to mind.
-
@Rhoerii@lemmy.wtf 2026-03-28 19:18
Here he is talking about it: Inside the Systemd Age Verification Debate: Developer Responds to Criticism https://itsfoss.com/dylan-taylor-systemd-controversy/ He sorta sums up by saying, "A common misconception about this change is that it introduces "age verification" to Linux. It doesn't. None of the PRs I submitted involve ID checks, facial recognition, or third-party verification services. You can enter any value, including January 1st, 1900." Still fucking annoying though.