"Oh no...we can't regulate anything when it helps consumers. Do you want the FCC to approve everything you plug in? That would be a total over-reach of the government and that's not what we can allow. We not only need to prevent that; but keep the FCC out of it entirely"

Where are those fuckers now? Doing the same fucking thing now that it has a chance to fuck people over.

It's not about safety...it's about fucking control. About fucking over as many people as possible while gaslighting them about safety.

Pretty soon you won't be able to run your own devices period. Your router will be whatever piece of shit the government allows that probably spies on everything you do while heavily filtering content. They will claim it's not violating freedom of speech....while they simultaneously wanted to shut down websites for moderating content they agreed with.

The FCC is being run by a bunch of anti-consumer pro-corporate lawyers. This will not end well for the people.

That...

and to ensure all routers in the hands of consumers have government mandated monitoring.

This new form of capitalism is great isn't it? The government makes a cash grab...it's deemed illegal...the companies that charged us get the refunds...and they get to keep it.

Seems like I just paid a bunch of money for nothing. Money was taken from me...that was deemed to have been illegally taken...and someone else is getting it back.

This was by design. This was to funnel our money to the corporations. They have figured out how to separate us from our money...in a way that we have to.

I mean it's inverse socialism. The corporations are redistributing our wealth among themselves while doing nothing for it.

Age verification for use period.

These kids don't need to be playing games online. Get the fuck off the console and hit the books.

You worked for a piece of shit company....therefore I cannot assume you will do any good.

Stay the fuck out of politics.

Nope. It's a failure. They promised this years ago and it doesn't work.

Time for the FAA to shut down the drone delivery nationwide and end this stupidity.

we couldn't have net neutrality because "that would lead to the FCC having to regulate everything you plug in to the internet"

and now...republicans are in fact...regulating what we plug in to the internet.

This is not about security, it's about control. It's about finding ways of breaking the free and open internet by one of locked down devices.

The only national security this is protecting is the free spread of speech by starting to lock it behind walls.

This FCC....does not work for us. It does not represent the people.

Yes.

Free and open source is dead. When major components that have no requirement to comply with the laws decide to implement a thing; it forces the hand of developers and users.

Where's the freedom. Did they ask anyone how this should be implemented...maybe take some responsibility given their usage levels and see how this would go over? No. They just did it. Fuck your opinion, get the fuck out if you don't like it.

The bullshit we sought to avoid with FOSS has in fact, infected FOSS.

Why do this? To enshittify linux just as much as everything else. The illusion of choice.

What makes it worse is every distribution who said they plan to do nothing....don't have to. They get to check off compliance without making a decision. Just more ducks in the row that's tossing FOSS down the toilet; even better are the ones that just "can't" get away from systemd.

It was not a decision that the fucking conductor of the orchestra should make. That should be the creators of the distribution.

Zuc and co are also funding those fights pushing for it.

It's to help verify the user is a human so they...you know...mark it to have all it's data sold.

Have had these for years.

And in Aldi's case...like everything they do...it was to reduce operating costs.

They got a lot of RTOS devices out there in the wild...running things.

Would be a shame if all those illegal operating systems were turned off by vendors by legal force.

See...this all dates back to the 80's.

Back in the 60's cable operators were required to carry local broadcasts. They could carry distant ones...both in the form of microwave relay and just big towers with antennas; but they were required to carry all the significant local channels. Well...that ultimately got overturned in the 80's as a first amendment violation. This meant cable operators were under no obligation to carry...any locals...and many smaller local channels got dropped. I do believe there was also a lot of outcry over carrying distant broadcast stations; especially when they got bumped over it. Fun Fact: that's part of the reason syndication blackout is a thing; if a national broadcaster is carrying a syndicated show at the same time as a local; the local can get it blocked. Or it used to be that way. I don't have cable anymore so I have no clue.

But...I digress. Congress fixed the problem in 1992 by crafting legislation that brought back must-carry but also created the restransmission consent. Yes...someone did think about the possibility of blackouts; but it was thought to be an unrealistic outcome. That it ultimately would be against the goal of both sides. Carriers want to carry channels, broadcasters want as many eyes on the stuff as possible....doing anything to prevent that would seem like a bad business decision and clearly they wouldn't do that.

For the first few years....this wasn't a problem. Consent didn't mean money had to exchange hands...it just meant some agreement had to be made. This is why you had that explosion of cable channels in the mid-90's popping up on every cable system. Distributing those was often part of a local retrans agreement. If Fox owned your local Fox affillate; then you were slapping fx on your lineup because it meant you didn't have to pay for the local Fox. Carry ESPN2? Get the ABC affiliate free.

The problem is that only worked for a while...and by 2000 it was starting to become a money game. The consolidation of cable companies didn't help either.

Those fields have existed as part of user logins on UNIX since the very early days. The operating system's roots are in a very different time. Depending on the particular system it may have wanted things like Name, Badge ID, Office Number, Home Number, Department....etc

realName and location have exited for probably over 50 years in the *NIX world. You don't break legacy if you can avoid it.

It's a form of forced compliance. It's a core operating system component taking the decision out and going "we're going to build it in to this thing everyone uses".

"We came up with this stuff...called Secure Boot? We're not going to require it yet...but it's a nice idea."
"Hey...we have OS level encryption. It's only going to be forced on users who organizations require it."
"Hey..this nifty login can help you use sync your stuff...but use it if you want."

Now...how many of those still hold water? You can turn off Secure Boot....but it might make your life a lot more difficult...cause Bitlocker to not work....
Bitlocker is enforced by default on everyone...and MS makes it a time-bomb for home users.
Linux is the only OS left that hasn't forced you in to online accounts...with cloud storage.

If they have to force it upon you; then it's not good.

It should be up to the distribution; not an independent core component. They can do it if they want...and ultimately it will be forked and replaced. That distraction will be used to make people forget the real reason: something got too opinionated in an ecosystem where that's what we're all trying to avoid in the first place.

On one hand, I think a company should do what they want.

Oh the other....a company of any size should not be able to dictate the market by abusing it's power.