• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    Nobody gives a fuck about your weaseling technicalities. The salient fact is that this change was made in order to “comply in advance” with totalitarian fuckery. It SIGNALS POLITICAL SUPPORT for it, and that’s not okay!

    • Balinares@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      I studied at the PR in question and that’s not the conclusion I arrive at. Let me try to explain how this looks to me.

      Also keep in mind, I do think we absolutely need to keep the political pressure on and push back on identity-gating policies with all our collective might. In that light the PR itself does the two things I’d absolutely require here: one, it allows the user to put whatever value they want in that field, including none at all, and two, it disallows all apps from reading that field without the user’s active permission.

      Basically it’s a superficially valid implementation of a bullshit requirement that still leaves all the power in the user’s hands and therefore renders the requirement meaningless. Or in other words, a huge middle finger to the proponents of age-checking.

      Mind you, I feel there’s also value in loud non-compliance and I’m glad some are taking that road – keep it up, folks. But I’m leery of demands that only one single approach be taken. This needs to be fought on every front we can. And to me the PR in question reads like an effective defensive move.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        That’s something I wondered about the person who implemented this too, I wonder if it was an attempt to install a bare minimum to say “There. We did it. Leave us alone.” Instead of leaving it up to the government to force the issue, and he’s getting absolutely raked over the coals for it.

        If that’s the case, I feel terribly bad about this backfiring so hard on him. I do think we should be putting up a lot more resistance before resorting to something like this though.

  • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    Couldn’t reply to me pointing out that this was merged, and was stated to be explicitly to support age verification laws, so you had to lie about it as a meme instead.

    Because thats what youre doing right now, lying and spreading misinformation. You can admit it.

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      The birth date field that was added can be used by age verification processes, but it’s not age verification itself.

      • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        It was added specifically for the purpose of two state laws and Brazil.

        Trying to weasel it as “this doesnt implement it” is misinformation at best.