The person you replied to is using "could"/"could not" to mean "would comply with the law"/"would not comply with the law"

Nobody here is saying that anyone is going to swoop in and physically prevent this software from being distributed on the internet.

> Then the problem the legislators sought to solve just got a lot worse, while calling a lot of attention to how little power they actually have to control decentralized FOSS software projects.

The legislators who passed this don't give a shit about that. Their intended target of this legislation is mainstream devices and mainstream users.

▲

lrvick 2 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. They are never going to actually come for niche Linux distros. All the more reason I am pushing back on all the fear.

The correct response from the Linux community is to say "fuck off", and get back to making their distros more secure, more private, and easier to use.

▲

kube-system 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Major distros will comply because they want to sell their services in Illinois.

I don’t think noncompliance of a container image is much of a “fuck you” since I don’t think lawmakers have ever heard of you nor would they really care about your compliance anyway.

This bill is primarily about kids using smartphones.

	▲	lrvick a day ago \| parent [-]
		Containers, desktop, server. We do all of it. Anyway. Kids are an excuse to get it passed. It is about testing the waters of how much control can be exerted by government on end user devices, and we need all maintainers to hold the line.

▲

otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

iamnothere 2 days ago | parent [-]

I see you’ve moved on to personal attacks, failing the “friendly advice” angle.

	▲	otterley a day ago \| parent [-]
		"Don't be an Internet Tough Guy" is among my friendly advice. People can see right through it, and it often works against you.