Dig Deeper Community Forum

https://odysee.com/@BrodieRobertson:5/f ... oming-to:b
Another clown world "protect the kids" bill is going to be passed saying that operating systems must verify users' ages, but it's very vague and clearly written by tech-illiterate iToddler boomers like all tech-related laws.

Colorado Bill: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051
California Bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0260AB1043

Here's the top comment on that video:

This is bill is overly broad and also unspecific enough to be both overreaching and meaningless at the same time. First, it seems to also requires anyone who provides software downloads to use that signal for age verification. So, stuff like adult games or other software that for some reason should be age restricted. Now they can legally charge all developers of that software with child abuse.

Second, it doesn't seem to cover things like - what if someone on the internet made a patch that removes the age verification code? The os provider is in compliance and yet no OS will have that signal de-facto. The bill does not cover the users, so if the user removes that "feature", they can't do anything, it seems.

Thirdly, there are no technical specs provided. In what way and what format will said verification take place, seems to be up to the particular vendor. So, every single distro and OS theoretically can implement unique way of doing this and then whoever must comply with that age must go and implement all existing APIs.

And finally, they also don't specify what should happen if they interface with something that doesn't have that verification. Well, they sort of do - they say that the developer must request the verification from the app store. WUT? So, they clearly had a smartphone in mind when writing this bill, and not really a desktop os. What does developer do when the application can't access any signals? Who knows.

This is the dumbest bill they made in a while. I put it on the same level as the ruling that boneless chicken can have bones and that chicken wing doesn't need to be a wing.

What do we think about this whole thing? Are open source operating systems going to add age verification in the next few years? What about proprietary operating systems, are they going to take this as an opportunity to introduce ID checking (which this bill doesn't force)?

PS: This has been said a lot of times already, but these age verification laws are extremely moronic and dishonest because guess what, the best way to make sure children don't look at (supposedly) harmful things online is by not giving every 4 year old an iPad or smartphone... which sadly is encouraged by our feminist society which heccin empowers women to have to wageslave and encourages them to be single mothers, leaving no time to take care of their children.

Complying with age verification for open source operating systems pretty much defeats the whole point of using them in the first place, and I think it violates the GPL and other open source licenses. And unless every single GNU/Linux distro and BSD derivative enforced age verification globally, people will just switch to another distro.

And this is the dumbest age verification law I've seen yet. Clearly they don't understand how GNU/Linux works. How the fuck do they expect every distro and package manager to enforce this bullshit? I guess GNU/Linux really is dying. At worst they'd use "protecting the children" to force all manufacturers to lock down their devices to prevent installation of GNU/Linux and other open operating systems.

I agree we wouldn't have this problem if children didn't have phones and parents did their fucking jobs protecting their own children. But parents won't do their job so the government has to do it for them, right? Of course if we leave it up to the parents, then why bother protecting our children when we can give them their own phone, let them set their own age (which they'll most certainly choose 18+), encourage them to download some AI apps, violent video games, and porn, let them be traumatized, then use their trauma to file lawsuits and push more age verification crap? Sacrifice your own children to "protect the children".

Here's another video on this
https://odysee.com/@switchedtolinux:0/i ... -a-linux:d

And stopping this isn't enough anymore. Things have to be pushed back. Laws already in effect have to be repealed. But once something becomes acceptable and normal, it's difficult to undo stuff without facing backlash.

This is both utterly evil and utterly moronic. From my understanding there's nothing stopping devs from just adding a pointless age verification pop-up that allows anyone to lie but that's just for now, surely in the near-future we will see ID verification-gated computers.

I'm afraid the EU might follow suit soon considering we are already basically US vassals.

Of course everything will get forked but most forks die in the long term. The only reasonable solution for distro maintainers I can think of is to stop distributing the systems in any territories with such laws but I have no clue if there exists some kind of legal trick to do that (because of course in practice you can't stop someone from downloading an iso)

Can we get a link to the actual legal documents (preferably in the first post)? I want to analyze them.

qualia wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 1:11 am I'm afraid the EU might follow suit soon considering we are already basically US vassals.

The European Slavery Union was actually first (not exactly the same but...): https://digdeeper.love/./articles/botnet.xhtml#voip

digdeeper wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 6:25 am Can we get a link to the actual legal documents (preferably in the first post)? I want to analyze them.

california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0260AB1043

colorado: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-051

digdeeper wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 6:25 am The European Slavery Union was actually first (not exactly the same but...): https://digdeeper.love/./articles/botnet.xhtml#voip

I think everyone here has heard of chat control at this point, its clearly evil but not as evil as OS-level verification, to state the obvious you can use a computer without a chat program but not without an operating system

https://reclaimthenet.org/brazil-enacts ... digital-id
Apparently Brazil has passed a similar law as well, and it's coming into effect this month. Truly a coinkydink, goy. It's not like the whole world is going to implement these laws now.
Funny that such a backwards fourth world monkey jungle wants to be at the front line of advanced dystopian surveillance, though.

moeloli wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 3:35 pm https://reclaimthenet.org/brazil-enacts ... digital-id
Apparently Brazil has passed a similar law as well, and it's coming into effect this month. Truly a coinkydink, goy. It's not like the whole world is going to implement these laws now.
Funny that such a backwards fourth world monkey jungle wants to be at the front line of advanced dystopian surveillance, though.

"This includes blocking sexual exploitation, harassment, gambling, predatory advertising, and other forms of abuse."

I almost admire how insidious this is. Obviously a bill banning kids from accessing porn and online casinos will be passed with like 90% social support, and when the people realise this is a slippery slope it will already be too late. I remember the self-proclaimed "freedom-loving" American conservatives cheering on the pornsite age verification laws without considering any long-term consequences, now as places like the UK are taking this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion suddenly their eyes have opened. The average person is retarded, who could've known?

It already is too late, and I don't think these laws will ever be repealed without people fighting back thinking these laws actually protect the children. And I doubt most people care at all and think all this bullshit is necessary to protect the children which it isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if most people who oppose these laws will ultimately give in and accept this as normal, then they'll decide we're all better off with this. Digital privacy and anonymity will disappear and once it does, will anyone want it back? I wouldn't be surprised if people argued "well the internet used to be a safe place but now it's too dangerous so we need digital ID now and Tor/VPNs are too dangerous now".

It's much more difficult to repeal a law than propose one. Some of us might be fighting back now, but imagine a future where digital IDs and age verification becomes global, and if don't fight back now (again, too late), we won't be able to in the future without protestors shouting "The government hates kids" and "protect our children" as if they couldn't do that themselves. It happened with many other issues. I don't see people protesting against ID checks in real life.

qualia wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 3:17 pm

digdeeper wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 6:25 am The European Slavery Union was actually first (not exactly the same but...): https://digdeeper.love/./articles/botnet.xhtml#voip

I think everyone here has heard of chat control at this point, its clearly evil but not as evil as OS-level verification, to state the obvious you can use a computer without a chat program but not without an operating system

Yeah. But it seems it's what started the obsession with age verification at all, which hasn't been covered very much in the media (only the "breaking encryption" part of CC).

Anyway, thanks for the links. Let's look at the California one. I'll cover only the parts I consider particularly interesting:

(e) (1) “Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

Hmm. Anyone who shares an exe or a binary on his website is an "application store" according to this definition. Linux package repos will need to implement this crap. I wonder if seeding an ISO fits here as well?

(f) “Developer” means a person that owns, maintains, or controls an application.

What if it's three hundred randoms from all over the world, that contributed to some program at some point? Will they all have to answer the "signal" for an user's age? What if it's all anons?

(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.

Same as above applies here. It's also clear this is written in terms of big corpo closed source systems, with the assumption that some third party "controls" it. Not that it's impossible in FOSS, if it has auto-updates enabled.

(1) Provide an accessible interface at account setup that requires an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

What if the OS lacks accounts? Seems like an easy way to bypass the requirement.

(B) A developer shall not willfully disregard internal clear and convincing information otherwise available to the developer that indicates that a user’s age is different than the age bracket data indicated by a signal provided by an operating system provider or a covered application store.

(B) If a developer has internal clear and convincing information that a user’s age is different than the age indicated by a signal received pursuant to this title, the developer shall use that information as the primary indicator of the user’s age.

So you are also supposed to use other sources of information, than the OS signal, if you have access to them...I wonder if they will make the devs eventually have to "seek out" the information. How would it be proven whether someone knows the user's "real age" anyway?

Now pay attention, for this is the best part:

1798.502. (a) With respect to a device for which account setup was completed before January 1, 2027, an operating system provider shall, before July 1, 2027, provide an accessible interface that allows an account holder to indicate the birth date, age, or both, of the user of that device for the purpose of providing a signal regarding the user’s age bracket to applications available in a covered application store.

What if the OS dev(s) gave up, and a "OS provider" doesn't exist anymore for that OS? Will they be punished for not following the prescription regardless? Does this mean every OS must have auto-updates enabled?

(b) If an application last updated with updates on or after January 1, 2026, was downloaded to a device before January 1, 2027, and the developer has not requested a signal with respect to the user of the device on which the application was downloaded, the developer shall request a signal from a covered application store with respect to that user before July 1, 2027.

HA! So you are indeed forced, as an application developer, to stay able to "request a signal" from anyone who uses your program. Even if you gave up the development, and it is now without maintainer, you must come back? This is the most obvious reading of this sentence to me, anyway. And if you don't come back...

1798.503. (a) A person that violates this title shall be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per affected child for each negligent violation or not more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per affected child for each intentional violation, which shall be assessed and recovered only in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General.

You get rekt by massive fines. Imagine a single dev being buried with buried with these because he dared to give up his app between January 2026 and 2027 lol.

Anyway Theundercoverman and moeloli are right. It's gov boomers once again being clueless about tech. But this won't stop them. After all, they are used to snapping a finger and seeing whatever changes in the world that they want. The burden will be on the poor dev or repo maintainer that has to deal with this crap.

List of distros or software that have so far reacted to this law:

https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/1922 - Dunno what this is, but plans on cucking.
https://www.kicksecure.com/wiki/Age-api - Will cuck.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/california- ... ion/185960 - Might or might not cuck. I don't think the devs themselves spoke yet.
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/10744 - Will likely cuck.
https://github.com/elementary/settings- ... issues/260 - Will cuck.
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/complianc ... laws/75791 - Seems to not want to cuck, but not very decisively.
https://morty.backtoheaven.click/post?m ... vel/246809 - Will cuck (PopOS)
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/ ... ion/181968 - Dev said this:

I’m going to refrain from speculating or opining about this until I sync with the project’s nominal legal assistance concerning impact.

Meaning will likely cuck.
https://xcancel.com/midnightbsd/status/ ... 1211718765 - Excludes Californians from access.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2 ... 00032.html - Heh. Giant thread about the detailed ways they plan on cucking.

Feel free to add more if you find them.

digdeeper wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 6:58 pm List of distros or software that have so far reacted to this law:

https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/pull/1922 - Dunno what this is, but plans on cucking.
https://www.kicksecure.com/wiki/Age-api - Will cuck.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/california- ... ion/185960 - Might or might not cuck. I don't think the devs themselves spoke yet.
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/10744 - Will likely cuck.
https://github.com/elementary/settings- ... issues/260 - Will cuck.
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/complianc ... laws/75791 - Seems to not want to cuck, but not very decisively.
https://morty.backtoheaven.click/post?m ... vel/246809 - Will cuck (PopOS)
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/ ... ion/181968 - Dev said this:

I’m going to refrain from speculating or opining about this until I sync with the project’s nominal legal assistance concerning impact.

Meaning will likely cuck.
https://xcancel.com/midnightbsd/status/ ... 1211718765 - Excludes Californians from access.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2 ... 00032.html - Heh. Giant thread about the detailed ways they plan on cucking.

Feel free to add more if you find them.

That's so pathetic. I would've expected shit like ubuntu to cuck but not for almost every distro to immediately fall in line. I suppose BSD really does stand for "based", if arch decides to cuck and other bsd systems dont ill genuinely consider switching.

Arch has a thread https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=312476
But requires login.

it's some absurd comedy to see that qubesos, the ultimate os for paranoiacs (if you ignore the systemd), is planning (or atleast considering) to comply with this restriction so easily
loonix devs are cucks, and it's another wednesday.

digdeeper wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2026 6:58 pm List of distros or software that have so far reacted to this law:

Imagine the message it'd send if ALL of them did like MidnightBSD.

.

I examined the relevant threads on the Arch forum, and my preliminary opinion is that they might not cuck, but I'm not sure if any devs actually posted. Yet, the idea of the law was mocked by forum members. And some mod moved it to the "threads going nowhere" section.

I'll enjoy our last days of freedom on the internet to resist, download NetBSD's entire repositories, ISOs and archive every single media I like from the internet, we're gonna need ID verified Micro$oft's cloud computers or Google's craptops running AluminiumOS with locked Bootloaders/BIOSes to access the internet anyways, they will say old x86/SPARC/POWER computers are harmful and being used to share CP, therefore we shall use State Approved OSes and computers to protect ze children in the coming future, things are looking dark there.

I also think it is very interesting that those laws are being passed after the declassification of the Epstein files, maybe they are manipulating people with this to make them lean towards supporting those laws around the world.

mia wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 8:11 am I'll enjoy our last days of freedom on the internet to resist, download NetBSD's entire repositories, ISOs and archive every single media I like from the internet, we're gonna need ID verified Micro$oft's cloud computers or Google's craptops running AluminiumOS with locked Bootloaders/BIOSes to access the internet anyways, they will say old x86/SPARC/POWER computers are harmful and being used to share CP, therefore we shall use State Approved OSes and computers to protect ze children in the coming future, things are looking dark there.

I also think it is very interesting that those laws are being passed after the declassification of the Epstein files, maybe they are manipulating people with this to make them lean towards supporting those laws around the world.

For sure. It's all connected. But no one with a modicum of awareness or analytical abilities will fall for this. It's very crude. Of course, this is not most people. Most Poles want internet age restrictions regardless of the foul scent they carry with them. (https://wiadomosci.radiozet.pl/polska/p ... szy-sondaz - this says 77%).

I mean it's easy to show that children are not "protected" at all (for example, from bad parents or schools). There are even ads directed to kids getting them (or their parents) to buy junk food and so on.

Even with this specific issue, if you believe in "protecting" kids on the internet by kicking them out if they are not reaching arbitrary ages (I don't), you should have to first prove that the content they are engaging with is actually doing harm. Which obviously a Linux repo isn't.

But we all know what it's really about so there is not much point to write an essay here.

Hey, someone is resisting: https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html

> I also think it is very interesting that those laws are being passed after the declassification of the Epstein files, maybe they are manipulating people with this to make them lean towards supporting those laws around the world.

Roosevelt's quote here is suitable for times like this : " In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Or maybe they are just using that opportunity to do so, like "never let a crisis go to waste"

Other privacy and security-oriented operating systems are bending the knee en masse:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/32410- ... ation-laws

https://gitlab.tails.boum.org/tails/tai ... tems/21457

d7oqkeho wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 7:18 am Other privacy and security-oriented operating systems are bending the knee en masse:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/32410- ... ation-laws

https://gitlab.tails.boum.org/tails/tai ... tems/21457

In that graphene thread, dev said this:

We're under no more obligation to filter the internet for California than we are to do it for China. Neither blocks access to the GrapheneOS website or services. If California wants to block access to those then they're welcome to pass a law implementing their own Great Firewall. The most action they could get from us is replacing Los Angeles and San Jose servers with Las Vegas or Seattle.

But who knows what they will end up doing in the end.
So far the only one truly commited to not cucking is the Ageless Linux.

digdeeper wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 3:21 pm Hey, someone is resisting: https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html

from what i understand this is just a satirical thing to show how absurdly vague the law is? all it is is a script that alters /etc/os-release (and adds a bunch of other joke stuff like a fake "age verification api") which as the creator argues would make you an "operating system provider" under the law if you run it and thus subject to fines (because you "control" the operating system on your device)? its kinda funny but i wouldn't count this as "fighting back" since its not a real separate distro that people are going to use

this script is the only thing this "distro" is https://goblincorps.com/become-ageless.sh

qualia wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 9:57 am

digdeeper wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 3:21 pm Hey, someone is resisting: https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html

from what i understand this is just a satirical thing to show how absurdly vague the law is? all it is is a script that alters /etc/os-release (and adds a bunch of other joke stuff like a fake "age verification api") which as the creator argues would make you an "operating system provider" under the law if you run it and thus subject to fines (because you "control" the operating system on your device)? its kinda funny but i wouldn't count this as "fighting back" since its not a real separate distro that people are going to use

this script is the only thing this "distro" is https://goblincorps.com/become-ageless.sh

Well, imagine everyone else cucks. And they don't. Then, that little script becomes quite a big deal.
It's a direct refusal to obey the law, and who does that? I've never seen it in the tech space at least.

qualia wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 9:57 am

digdeeper wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 3:21 pm Hey, someone is resisting: https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html

from what i understand this is just a satirical thing to show how absurdly vague the law is? all it is is a script that alters /etc/os-release (and adds a bunch of other joke stuff like a fake "age verification api") which as the creator argues would make you an "operating system provider" under the law if you run it and thus subject to fines (because you "control" the operating system on your device)? its kinda funny but i wouldn't count this as "fighting back" since its not a real separate distro that people are going to use

this script is the only thing this "distro" is https://goblincorps.com/become-ageless.sh

Well it is in actual contravention of the law, and it is easier to use than installing another linux distribution (appeasing e.g. both soystemd users and avoiders)[unless it actually only works on debian?], and it is something that can catch on in normie communities.
but it loses any effectiveness in fighting the law when the law is "competently" rewritten (by competently evil lawmakers) to be less absurdly vague.
It's better than not doing it at all. To make a statement though they should really release their own ISO with their funny patch applied and a 1337 wallpaper and theme.

Also read their little article at the bottom
>Ageless Linux is currently a bash script. It will soon also be a physical device and a web service.
>These devices will cost between $6 and $18 depending on configuration, will be physically handed to children at school STEM fairs and library maker spaces beginning January 2027
>Ageless Linux is not just a script. It is a commitment. As major distributions formulate their compliance strategies — D-Bus interfaces, AccountsService patches, age collection prompts in installers — Ageless Linux will be there with removal scripts, spins, and forked packages that strip out age collection infrastructure.
< that's pretty good

And they have stuff to educate clueless people on the real motivations behind the law

They also mention that this law will teach children that the law is something to be circumvented, in my opinion this could be a positive outcome because it puts them on a level playing field with the politicians who already know that.

unbelivable wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 12:53 pm < that's pretty good

I was writing that actually it looks like their condition for success really is to have them re-draft the law so that it leaves linux et. al. alone:

Q: What is the point of all this?
There are two points.
The first is that AB 1043's definitions are so broad that a bash script and a static website can create a regulated operating system. A law that cannot distinguish between Apple Inc. and a shell script has a drafting problem. A law that sweeps in 600+ volunteer Linux distributions was not written with them in mind. A law that was not written with them in mind but regulates them anyway is not a careful law.
The second is that this law was never meant to be enforced against everyone it covers. It was meant to be enforced selectively. The large platform companies already comply. The small ones can't. The Attorney General has sole enforcement discretion. A law that gives a single office the power to selectively impose $7,500-per-child fines against any operating system distributor in the state — while ensuring that only the largest corporations can avoid liability — is not a child safety measure. It is a tool for selective prosecution. The children are the justification. The discretion is the product.
We are trying to make the selective part difficult.

but they say

The premise of AB 1043 — that operating systems should collect personal information about their users and transmit it to application developers on demand — is wrong. It is wrong when Apple does it. It is wrong when Google does it.

I just think they should make that second quote the first thing they mention as a reason.

P.S. I was trying to use spoiler tags so I don't clutter up the thread but it looks like there aren't any so sry

https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html

Either this is a joke or the governments will come after this and shut them down.

Also I updated my desktop Linux article to address this issue.
https://theundercoverman.w10.site/artic ... ceed.xhtml

Theundercoverman_ wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2026 6:18 pm https://goblincorps.com/ageless-linux.html

Either this is a joke or the governments will come after this and shut them down.

Also I updated my desktop Linux article to address this issue.
https://theundercoverman.w10.site/artic ... ceed.xhtml

It's genius if you think about it.
Scenario 1: the legal crocodiles smell the bait and don't touch it. In this case, other distros might start feeling they could try their luck too. FOSS becomes free again.
Scenario 2: the legal crocodiles do the "dance of death" with this frog who dared to enter their territory. Well then, the insanity of the legal system is exposed for all to see. No one with more than 3 neurons will be able to support the legal system and not be laughed at. This is the scenario that Ageless Linux is trying to bait, BTW.

I don't think it is a joke. They wouldn't risk getting fucked by these giant fines. It's a beautiful sacrifice.