Utterly aside from the general content of this thread.

I know nothing of the pieces printed or their leanings, nor is it relevant for the purposes of this response.

That argument is the weakest of sauces, drizzled over a disappointing bad-faith steak.

A single article doesn't define a whole paper (nor was that claimed).

A papers' reputation doesn't give them a free pass for printing something outside of their normal editorial quality control.

Argue the actual claims, this bad faith deflection bullshit is fooling no-one.

You mean to say that people on this site are claiming that individuals with publicly stated agendas and goals might possibly use the fiscal and/or reputational benefits of the organisations they control to aid in the furthering of whatever goals/agendas they may have?

Point me in their direction, i shall have words...big ones...like wherewithal ...or extrapolation....prestidigitation...etc.

Clearly these people are buttering their toast with a teaspoon, seems like an incredible leap to me and i bet they couldn't even provide a single example of this happening in the modern day.....illogical plebeians.

Edit : more salt that I'd expect for zero actual counterpoints

There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren't getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

i played this game hard for a while, but there were so many CTD progress reverting bugs that it finally killed my enthusiasm for it.

TL;DR;

• The field isn't the issue, the intent behind it (and the intentions behind the law that started it) are what (most) people are complaining about.
• Pretending that people are complaining about the field itself in isolation as a means to not address the actual concern being raised is weaksauce.

Let’s say the answer is “Guaranteed”, in 5 years age verification on OS level will be mandated by law in US. Will it become mandatory on all Linux installations? Of course not.

If the law mandates OS level age verification, then, yes, it will become mandatory on all linux installations, in the situations where the law applies. there is no "of course not" about it.

Will everybody adhere to this? almost certainly not, will it be illegal to not adhere to this yes it will.

Anyone willing will just download Linux distro for any other country and use it.

Agreed, still illegal though.

Let’s say age verification will become mandatory in the whole fucking world and all official Linux distros will adopt it. Anyone willing will download “illegal” Linux distro and use it.

Also agreed.

The source code is there, making a version of Linux without age verification is and always will be easy.

Easy is a leap, i'll agree to possible. Still illegal in the proposed scenario.

The changes done by systemd are meaningless because they do no bring us any closer to real enforcement.

I'm not disputing that the actual change itself is of much use in a verification sense, which i've said repeatedly.

Technically , by definition, the addition of code that facilitates checks, no matter how small, is bringing us closer, but i know what you mean and I’ve already stated that i agree.

The issue being raised is not the PR itself, but the intention behind it (and the intentions behind the law that started it) , as has been stated multiple times.

Police knocking on people’s doors and checking their computers will bring real enforcement and what systemd does or doesn’t do has nothing to do with it.

Also not true, that example doesn't really hold up , but to answer it directly :

• If the field does exist and is incorrect (or empty), that's something they can try to admit as evidence.
• If the implementation of the field exists and this particular build/compilation doesn't include it,that is also a kind of proof.
• If the field never existed in the first place it's absence can't be used to prove anything.

To be clear I’m not saying this to claim a position of "field is bad on it's own", i'm saying your example doesn't hold up.

Getting mad at systemd for adding this field only shows people don’t understand what the real danger is.

As i have said multiple times, most people aren't arguing against the field itself.

You continuing to pretend they are mad at systemd for the field itself is telling.

You’re conflating political issues with completely irrelevant technical changes.

No, I’ve been clear that they are separate and that most aren't complaining about the technical change in isolation.

I'll quote myself:

This field is not age verification on it’s own.

Nobody is pushing this single field change in isolation is a full age verification system, to pretend they are is disingenuous and reeks of bad faith.

If you want to continue to pretend conflation so you don't have to actually address the concern being presented that says a lot.

This is very simple. I really don’t know how people are confused by it. It’s like you are trying to distract us from the real problems on purpose.

So, incorrect usage of a fallacy, moving goalposts, feigned ignorance , and now projection.

Is there some sort of bingo card you're working from ?

Anyway, I’ll assume bad faith at this point, as it's unlikely you hit that many checkboxes accidentally.

On the offchance I’ll get a genuine answer, what is it that you think is the "real problem" here ?

I imagine it's from all the times authority figures from religious organisations that are so zealously espousing "think of the children" have ended up being the very thing they are supposedly fighting against.

I can't speak to the lightheartedness of the intent of the author, but I can say that I personally understand the structure of the humour at play.

Plenty of times a Church has reported it's leaders who were abusing their position and co-operated with law enforcement.

And plenty of times they've done the exact opposite, enough that is is part of the cultural Zeitgeist of multiple nations that religious authority figures have been abusing their power and getting away with it for centuries.

My church's policy is that you report it to the police first.

I mean this genuinely and not as an attack.

I'm not sure how to address that level of naïveté but i will explain it as best I can.

Firstly, I can't imagine there is a single policy written anywhere that states "hide the child abuse from the police" as the official position.

Secondly, I'd wager good money that all the religious institutions and staff at all those places would swear up and down that the policy was to report it to the police and it was a few "bad actors" in an otherwise fundamentally good organisation.

The exception possibly being those very insular cults where the abuses are part of the actual doctrine, in those cases they'd admit to it because they don't see themselves as having some something wrong based on their beliefs.

There are numerous historic and ongoing cases about this, it's not difficult to find.

Even if you personally (or even all the people you know) are 100% following this guideline, it's provably true that that isn't always the case.

"But the rules say we should report them" isn't strong position to defend any size of organised religion in the face of the sheer number of accusations, arrests and investigations to the contrary.

As I said, and I mean it, this isn't an attack on you or yours. You could be absolutely correct about your circle, and I have no issues with individual faith (as long as its not forced upon others).

The issue I have is with trying to defend organised religion as a whole using small anecdotal data as a basis.

Honestly, I want you to be right but "trust me bro" isn't a good argument and you need good arguments, because weak arguments are worse than no arguments at all.

That's a nice one

The first one is factually incorrect.

The second one is factually incorrect because it relies on the correctness of the first one.

You could perhaps argue common usage/colloquialism, then you'd be subjectively incorrect, but that would be my opinion not a fact.

Hah, i like how you did the thing they just mentioned, in the first sentence no less and then for the entire rest of the reply.

Classic trolling, 5 stars, no notes.

The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.

I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.

So , given that New Zealand and Australia are using their law based framework to deny visa access it's all good right ?

I also noted you conveniently didn't address this in your response.

Yes freedom of speech ends at criminal action or illegal behavior. That is where those boundaries exist. If they do not end at that juncture then where do they end?

I'm not saying that laws aren't useful for this purpose I'm saying that using laws as a baseline without accounting for laws being different in different places is a weak argument foundation, not even mentioning that laws change over time based on unlawful actions being allowed and previously lawful actions now being denied, so not only do you need to account for geographic location you also need to account for time.

As an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67601647

By your proposed framework, you're cool with this because their freedom of speech (or i suppose expression in this instance) is illegal.

To be clear, if you are cool with that, you do you, I'm not your parent, nor am i any moral or ethical authority. I'm using it as an example to gauge how married you are to the idea of laws as absolutes when it comes to freedom.

TL;DR;

Hyperbole and "black and white" thinking aren't a good foundation for claiming moral superiority.

I’m familiar. I don’t know how anyone on Lemmy would not be familiar with it by this point as it’s one of the main go to justifications people use for treating others like shit.

That's....certainly....one of the takes of all time.

I'm personally astounded you chose that particular quote, but i'll highlight an important part for you as well.

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion

I personally wouldn't attribute "open to rational argument" and "kept in check by public opinion" as hallmarks of a majority of trump voters, but that's just me.

Daryl Davis, a black musician who managed to turn multiple KKK members by simply engaging with them as human beings.

A good example of a single person making a difference.

I'm genuinely not sure how you think this can be applied at scale, are you expecting all the people who didn't vote for trump to dedicate their lives to reforming the people actively trying to do horrible things to them.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump,

Roughly half of the people who voted, but ok.

it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

A few things:

"Just decide" implies it was a sudden decision with no lead up, that is incorrect.

Where are you getting the idea that people are expecting trump voters to magically change for the better?

It sounds like you would like them to, which is nice, but that's a broad generalisation for no citation.

My whole point being that when roughly half of the country voted for Trump, it is an absolutely insane idea to just decide it’s ok to treat all of them intolerantly and also expect things to just magically change for the better.

That's an extreme amount of projection.

Broadly claiming that everyone is the maximum amount of intolerant to anyone even slightly of the grouping you've specified is disingenuous at best, further claiming they are all doing this to magically change the minds of said group is equally ridiculous.

and further down :

self righteously justify not making any fucking attempt to reach these people and turn them.

If you genuinely think no attempts have been made up to now, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I'm sure it's an interesting story.

Self-righteous, like "nobody but me is doing the thing i think is right, in the way that i think is correct" ?

Feels like I’m taking crazy pills.

It feels that way because you've set up a catch-all scenario which encompasses your specific perspective and doesn't allow for perspectives that don't align.

If you remove the ability to handle nuance from your perspective then any nuance that arises will seem crazy.

Example of nuance.

"A non-trivial portion of this group of people have voted a specific way, with the understanding that doing so will materially endanger people i love, I have a limited amount of energy and I'm choosing not to spend it sorting through who are the 'saveable' bigots and instead direct that energy toward protecting my loved ones (and myself) from the consequences of their actions."