I don’t think enough developers realize that the majority of users does not want this. They’re acting exactly like the legislators: “we don’t give a shit about what the people think”.
The legislators won’t take the Linux community seriously, because the developers aren’t taking the community seriously either.
I’m curious to see how it’ll develop.
I don’t think it’s unproductive at all. Positive changes and resistance to negative changes are caused by many, extremely different and complex factors, one of which is voiced discontent at all levels. It’s a chain of pressures. Some elements press on other elements which are not the final target, but this pressure makes them in turn exert even more pressure closer to the target. Edit: take for instance the Montgomery bus boycott – was the bus company responsible for the law? shouldn’t the black people have done the boycott then?
Without such internal pressures, positive changes may fail. History shows examples over and over (a good read is the historian Barzun’s From Dawn to Decadence). I’m sure that if it wasn’t me posting stuff like this, it’d be someone else, and maybe sharing a much less polite post.
Also, I think that this kind of moderation ends up giving a very false picture on the forums, as if everyone discussing there doesn’t really mind about the topic.
I think developers can do something about it. They don’t want to, maybe for obvious reasons, and I respect their choice. But there is a choice.
If you visit, say, the website of the American Association of Physics Teachers or similar associations, you can read their complaints, protests, and alarming messages about cuts and bad policy changes in the education system. So clearly laws like these are not truly targeted at the well-being of children. Fu*king invest on education of children and adults instead.
We forget that there’s no just law, there’s also morality. And sometimes they are against each other. And we must make a choice.
I don’t live in California, but I was one of the many who wrote to EU parliament members against the chat-control law proposals, and participated in other local activities about that.
I’d be happy to write to the lawmakers in California. I suppose my email would immediately go into their spam folder.
No, because the Afghan woman doesn’t live in California…
Indeed! As I wrote in the post, these are just examples that explicitly mention age-verification.
No official decisions yet, although in a discussion thread I read developers basically saying “the law is the law”. This is why I politely wanted to let them know, as a KDE user, what’s my stance.
You’re absolutely right. And it’s the same group of people pushing for this in all these places.
Absolutely touché! My Android is dying and I look forward to switching to GrapheneOS.
🤝 Maybe “government parent brainwash them”.
I don’t see any difference with a law saying that you must have a camera installed in your house to potentially check what you do (or what your child does). It’s my house, I decide whether I want a camera installed.
If someone tells me they’re going to put a camera but it’s innocuous because it’s off, or because I can decide whether to turn it on, or because I can point it in any direction I like (toward the wall), well they completely miss the point: it’s my house, if I don’t want a camera in there, then no camera goes in there. That’s my basic right as a human being, and any individual or entity or government that tries to force something like this, automatically loses its legitimacy. Its “laws” are immoral and therefore void. I don’t care being then branded as “anarchist” or as “criminal”. Welcome are all “criminals” from the past that fought and broke unjust laws in order to fight for human rights. I’m not a Russian, bowing my head and complying. Better dead. My grandchildren should not grow up in such conditions.
Likewise, my personal laptop is mine and I decide what does go and what doesn’t go in it.
Personally I do not want to comply with the law. It’s a law that violates my basic rights as a human being, and any tools that favours it or try to comply with it become tools that commit the same violations. My laptop is mine, I decide what goes in it, and nobody has any right to force any software in it, no more than they have any right to put a camera in my house to check what I do. When “laws” violate human rights, what counts is not what’s the “legal” thing to do, but what’s the moral thing to do.
Today we would be in a Russia-like state if people had not actively resisted, broken, and refused to comply with unjust laws.
Amen!
🤝 Well said. Not only normalizing the new boundaries, but in the case of software or hardware, even locking you into the new boundaries.
It doesn’t work quite that way. Typically you have a sequence of very small changes, all “innocuous”, that lock you more and more into the previous ones. When you suddenly realize that the cumulative change is bad, you also find it’s very difficult to “move away from it”. This is why it’s important not to give away a single inch, from the very start.
It’s seen as offensive, but I was surprised that they censor that and don’t censor “fuck”. Even the link was censored, managed to bypass the censoring by using percent-encoding.
In principle I agree with you, pacific discussion and democracy should be the way to go. But it seems that “discussion” doesn’t lead anywhere these times. Politicians do whatever they like (or what lobbies tell them to do), without checking if the majority of the population really agree with some decisions. A developer does whatever he likes, without bothering about the more or less pacific feedback he gets on github. Nobody really seems to want to have a discussion. Well guess then what the “mob” does at some point: they don’t care about discussions anymore either, and they do as they please too.
I fear that riots will start on a larger scale. Even if the context today is different, the situation reminds me somewhat of what happened with the 1981 riots in Toxteth, in Brixton, and other previous riots. Unjust or misused laws; deafness of authorities about discontent; innocent and not-so-innocent people getting hurt.
I was very confused about this too. But now I realize that’s not what “FOSS” means to everyone. There are developers that work with FOSS in the same way they could (or do) work for a corporation – note the many comments like “users don’t have any rights to make demands of developers”, “developers don’t owe anything to the users or to the ‘community’”, and similar comments. Luckily there are also developers for which “FOSS” does mean what it means to you and me.
Maybe there are other FOSS users that are under the same misunderstanding as I was. It should be made clear that “FOSS”, per se, really means nothing else than “not requiring payments” and “with source open to the public”. Any extra meanings depend on whom you’re speaking to.