this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2026
733 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
84025 readers
7160 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I did… and everything you say is nonsensical. So I responded in the only way this system would make any sense.
Your way, the OS just takes in an age on trust, then the apps have to verify anyway. How do they do that? They need ID, when it would’ve raise to get that validation from the OS that already had the ID verified. Your way means nothing. It does nothing. It adds an age to a system for no reason and is completely unusable.
What I'm describing is exactly how it's been implemented into several Linux distros in response to the California law. Apps shouldn't need any more verification than pinging the OS to find out the age of the user. It makes a single, easy to understand method of controlling a device intended for a child (which is the only actual benefit to any of this). It puts the responsibility on the parent or guardian setting up the device, which is exactly where it belongs.
And that’s precisely why I’m switching to a distro that doesn’t use systemd.