Remix.run Logo
anigbrowl a day ago

Weird how the people who habitually complain about government are conspicuously silent when it delivers something they wanted.

missinglugnut a day ago | parent | next [-]

What do you want people to say? "Yay, the terrible law that threatened to make free computing illegal has an exemption for Linux. Now we only have to deal with unwanted mandatory age verification on all our non-linux devices. I'm so happy."

anigbrowl 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, learn to take a win when you get one. This is a very basic skill in politics.

sbuttgereit a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I habitually complain about government... so let me help you out with this.

The original issue with the law was never that those poor open source developers were going to have to bear the burden of complying with the law, but that the law itself was a bald-faced invasion of privacy by an overbearing troupe of people in power (i.e., government) so shit-sure of their superiority over the simple common folk they govern (i.e., you and me) that they aren't even embarrassed by their own arrogance.

I would suggest that what "we wanted" is no such law at all. What would be weird, and worthy of comment, is if those of us that complain about government were actually satisfied by an exemption which only applies to pretty damn tiny slice of the market. If anything, that wasn't a victory for privacy or common sense, but rather a concession that they had foolishly created a law that they wouldn't have been able to enforce as broadly as they thought they could get away with... or if they tried to enforce it they'd have to contend with the optics of the big hand of government yet again crushing individuals whose only real crime was their altruism rather than just some giant corporation.

So it isn't weird at all that "we're" silent. This isn't a win. Pointing out that the law had unintended consequences, including with Linux, et al., wasn't a statement of objective but rather a simple show that the law was rife with thoughtless unintended, or perhaps simply unspoken, consequences. The legislature's act here didn't restore privacy nor did it remove bad outcomes: if anything it now just raises questions about equal protection under law, at least on some practical level. It raises the question why some users of computers need such protections as age verification and others don't, and why the licensing terms of the OS are a valid proxy for that need... taking for granted that the stated purposes of the law are the real ones, of course.

Frannky a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of people are not stupid. Age verification is a backdoor for control. I read and did not even bother to comment, it's like yay, that horrendous thing they were trying to do now it's not applied to everyone. I'm also sorry for California, such a beautiful place and full of wonderful people. I hope it will recover one day.

tstrimple 16 hours ago | parent [-]

A lot of people are stupid though. The law had zero age verification in it for example, but tons of breathless conspiracy theorists are claiming that's what it is about.

Frannky 14 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

PowerElectronix a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They shouldn't need to pass this if they didn't pass age verification at all.

This is not a good thing, it's a very small patch for a very bad thing.

throwawayqqq11 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is not wanted, its duct taping a bad idea even further and i half-wish MS/apple/co sue against it. This may cause lawmakers to bounce back in the wrong direction though.

edot a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, this is fantastic. Should be top of the page. I’m honestly shocked, I’ve fully internalized that everything is corrupt and beholden to big corporations. Somehow, a victory! Looks like the Linux Foundation and EFF pushed back, but they’re not exactly big. Good job, California lawmakers!

zoobab a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not a victory, Android is still covered.

qmarchi a day ago | parent | next [-]

Hard to argue that it's open source...

catlikesshrimp a day ago | parent [-]

Graphene should qualify. That would be a good incentive for kids to learn to root a mobile device and run graphene on it.

harvey9 a day ago | parent | next [-]

I used the web based installer and it was so easy that we would be complaining the kids are not really learning anything by doing it!

epihelix 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You actually don't root a GrapheneOS device (sadly, imo, but this is one of GrapheneOS's peculiarities. If you want root, Lineage is your friend.)

gmueckl a day ago | parent | prev [-]

AOSP itself shouldn't be.

roenxi a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Good job, California lawmakers!

Is this serious or sarcasm? They passed a horrible law, now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce. So, you know. Why legislate it?

There isn't much of an angle here that reflects well on Californian lawmakers, they're still supporting this authoritarian trend of de-anonymisation and rolling back free communication on the internet. They're just going to come back for linux later once the idea of legally mandated PII on account registration is normalised. Although I do see this "In addition, lawmakers inserted a new provision prohibiting anyone from requesting an age signal from an OS provider or app store unless required by law" so we seem to be entering a wild space where they're going to try and micromanage this in a weird way.

1718627440 a day ago | parent [-]

> now its an internally contradictory horrible law because apparently it isn't important enough to consistently enforce

Law is not an abstract code, but an incremental sometimes futile approach to shape society. They only want a way to hold big corporations accountable to exploiting children. They don't actually intend the effects on the consumer, so they tried to fix on easily changeable effect: "Don't worsen the privacy for people who want it." If you are using e.g. MS Windows, you have given up everything already. They do a lot of "telemetry" and for example everything you typed into MS Word is already licensed to Microsoft.

roenxi a day ago | parent | next [-]

So what makes kid users on linux so special that they don't need nanny state protection? Are the Californian legislators just throwing them to the wolves? Or are the protections being put in place here not actually important?

Seriously, what is the message here supposed to be about the kids using linux? And why are they so different from kids using Windows or Mac? Are there other safety features we can exempt kid linux users from?

c22 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The comment you're replying to is saying that it's not actually about protecting kids, but rather controlling large businesses.

1718627440 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There is no corporation that spies on the user at the OS level.

There is a sysadmin (likely the parent), whose responsibility is that already.

johnnyanmac a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> They only want a way to hold big corporations accountable to exploiting children.

Let me know when they pass actual laws tackling that, then. Even if this law was ironclad, this does not solve the simple factor of using a "verified" device.

You don't fix a problem of society from private corporations by restricting society. You need to actually attack the corporations itself. But governments are sheepish to go after "their own", or people who can bribe them into feeling like one of them.

It's not a great implementation either. But COPPA is an example in the right direction and made companies need to change their algorithms based on the user account's reported age. That's more of the direction to move in.

lmm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What a pointlessly provocative and unproductive thing to say.

carodgers a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Delivers something they wanted" is the most bizarre way possible to phrase "followed through with the majority of a reprehensible agenda and were forced to carve out an exception due to technical constraints and massive blowback."

jchw a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When people pointed out the consequences this would have for open source, that did not mean what they wanted was an open source exemption. It was just meant to demonstrate just how poorly conceived the law is that nobody at any point even thought about this before it was signed in. Frankly the consequences for open source are not even at the forefront of concerns about what these rushed regulations will do to the world.

Pavilion2095 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The age verification requirement wasn't dropped, what are you talking about? Linux getting an exemption isn't a win.

anigbrowl 20 hours ago | parent [-]

It is absolutely a win. If you can't see it as a win because you didn't get everything you wanted at once, then you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment. Big wins in politics (and most other things) are made out of a succession of smaller wins. Getting unanimous passage of something in a messy legislature is actually quite rare.

antonvs a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It delivered an arbitrary exception to a stupid law. If all someone wanted was an exception for Linux, they don’t understand the problem with this law.

cwillu a day ago | parent [-]

“California lawmakers unanimously pass Linux exemption from age-verification law — software distributed under the GPL, MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are exempt”

antonvs 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you really missing the point that badly?

If you allow this pandering to satisfy you, you’re essentially supporting an age verification requirement for all other computing systems. So you didn’t think the requirement itself was a problem, you just wanted to make sure it didn’t affect you?

cwillu 18 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not an exemption “for linux”, and claiming it is and then accusing people who point out that it's very clearly not of missing the point is something else.

Good day.

antonvs 18 hours ago | parent [-]

What you’re doing is called derailing.

I used the same language as in the OP title. Why aren’t you responding to that? You’re missing the point because you weren’t responding meaningfully to what I was saying, you’re using someone else’s choice of language to derail.

> Good day.

And here comes the passive aggression, true to form.

17 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
colordrops a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They didn't "deliver something we wanted". They decided NOT to fuck us over. I guess we should thank them for that?

squigz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed, this is very generous of them, and we should be thankful.

catlikesshrimp a day ago | parent [-]

Sounds more like they did their job well, not that they are generous.