▲ 1006 ▼ Utah first state to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs — law goes into effect, designed to prevent bypassing age checks (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 6 months ago by LuminousLuddite@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 330 comments fedilink hide all child comments 🤬 5 🤣 1
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 157 points 6 months ago (10 children) Porn sites have been doing that for years now. And that's exactly what they want. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 88 points 6 months ago (9 children) They don't want every website to do it though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 53 points 6 months ago (7 children) I like the thought, but it won't work. The big websites won't be willing to lose money they don't have to, and like ID laws that give them reasons to extract more data from users anyway. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 child) They actually want to avoid the liability of storing someone’s id. The government wants to make these things illegal, but they also want to track every person on the internet through their government ID, so they create the problem (age restriction and id checks) because they have the planned solution: digital id for every computer! Do you have your computer license? Do you? You think the internet is a psy-op and Big Brother’s watching you? Just wait until a government admin message pops up on your screen because you visited the wrong website. You’re getting fined for spreading misinformation or receiving a letter for libel due to some offhand tweet about some famous person. Don’t worry about receiving a notice in the mail, if you have a printer they’ll make it print your ticket for you immediately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago You don’t thing an extra 10,000 words in the EULA won’t absolve them of liability for ID theft? Actually, the existing EULAs probably already do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 months ago Its easier to implement and less crazy than blocking VPNs. It also pushes back on other jurisdictions doing the same. I'd be amazed if this isn't what happens. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago Indeed. ID laws are a wet dream of Meta and the like. Both because it gives them the unique ID the always wanted and because it is easier for them to comply than small upstarts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Big websites will only have to do it for a little while though, a month perhaps. If suddenly Utah can't reach youtube or Netflix... Constituents will complain, the citizens simply won't have it, and then the legislators have a problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Your right, but I can imagine what it would be like, and that's something. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago I might not underestimate how much big tech companies hate this too. They are pretty famous about despising all regulation of their space. I wouldn’t put it past them to block a backwater like Utah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 6 months ago They don’t want every website to do it Are you sure? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 88 points 6 months ago (9 children) They don't want every website to do it though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 53 points 6 months ago (7 children) I like the thought, but it won't work. The big websites won't be willing to lose money they don't have to, and like ID laws that give them reasons to extract more data from users anyway. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 child) They actually want to avoid the liability of storing someone’s id. The government wants to make these things illegal, but they also want to track every person on the internet through their government ID, so they create the problem (age restriction and id checks) because they have the planned solution: digital id for every computer! Do you have your computer license? Do you? You think the internet is a psy-op and Big Brother’s watching you? Just wait until a government admin message pops up on your screen because you visited the wrong website. You’re getting fined for spreading misinformation or receiving a letter for libel due to some offhand tweet about some famous person. Don’t worry about receiving a notice in the mail, if you have a printer they’ll make it print your ticket for you immediately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago You don’t thing an extra 10,000 words in the EULA won’t absolve them of liability for ID theft? Actually, the existing EULAs probably already do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 months ago Its easier to implement and less crazy than blocking VPNs. It also pushes back on other jurisdictions doing the same. I'd be amazed if this isn't what happens. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago Indeed. ID laws are a wet dream of Meta and the like. Both because it gives them the unique ID the always wanted and because it is easier for them to comply than small upstarts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Big websites will only have to do it for a little while though, a month perhaps. If suddenly Utah can't reach youtube or Netflix... Constituents will complain, the citizens simply won't have it, and then the legislators have a problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Your right, but I can imagine what it would be like, and that's something. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago I might not underestimate how much big tech companies hate this too. They are pretty famous about despising all regulation of their space. I wouldn’t put it past them to block a backwater like Utah. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 6 months ago They don’t want every website to do it Are you sure? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 53 points 6 months ago (7 children) I like the thought, but it won't work. The big websites won't be willing to lose money they don't have to, and like ID laws that give them reasons to extract more data from users anyway. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 child) They actually want to avoid the liability of storing someone’s id. The government wants to make these things illegal, but they also want to track every person on the internet through their government ID, so they create the problem (age restriction and id checks) because they have the planned solution: digital id for every computer! Do you have your computer license? Do you? You think the internet is a psy-op and Big Brother’s watching you? Just wait until a government admin message pops up on your screen because you visited the wrong website. You’re getting fined for spreading misinformation or receiving a letter for libel due to some offhand tweet about some famous person. Don’t worry about receiving a notice in the mail, if you have a printer they’ll make it print your ticket for you immediately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago You don’t thing an extra 10,000 words in the EULA won’t absolve them of liability for ID theft? Actually, the existing EULAs probably already do. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 months ago Its easier to implement and less crazy than blocking VPNs. It also pushes back on other jurisdictions doing the same. I'd be amazed if this isn't what happens. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago Indeed. ID laws are a wet dream of Meta and the like. Both because it gives them the unique ID the always wanted and because it is easier for them to comply than small upstarts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Big websites will only have to do it for a little while though, a month perhaps. If suddenly Utah can't reach youtube or Netflix... Constituents will complain, the citizens simply won't have it, and then the legislators have a problem. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Your right, but I can imagine what it would be like, and that's something. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago I might not underestimate how much big tech companies hate this too. They are pretty famous about despising all regulation of their space. I wouldn’t put it past them to block a backwater like Utah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 child) They actually want to avoid the liability of storing someone’s id. The government wants to make these things illegal, but they also want to track every person on the internet through their government ID, so they create the problem (age restriction and id checks) because they have the planned solution: digital id for every computer! Do you have your computer license? Do you? You think the internet is a psy-op and Big Brother’s watching you? Just wait until a government admin message pops up on your screen because you visited the wrong website. You’re getting fined for spreading misinformation or receiving a letter for libel due to some offhand tweet about some famous person. Don’t worry about receiving a notice in the mail, if you have a printer they’ll make it print your ticket for you immediately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago You don’t thing an extra 10,000 words in the EULA won’t absolve them of liability for ID theft? Actually, the existing EULAs probably already do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago You don’t thing an extra 10,000 words in the EULA won’t absolve them of liability for ID theft? Actually, the existing EULAs probably already do. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jobbies@lemmy.zip 11 points 6 months ago Its easier to implement and less crazy than blocking VPNs. It also pushes back on other jurisdictions doing the same. I'd be amazed if this isn't what happens. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago Indeed. ID laws are a wet dream of Meta and the like. Both because it gives them the unique ID the always wanted and because it is easier for them to comply than small upstarts. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Big websites will only have to do it for a little while though, a month perhaps. If suddenly Utah can't reach youtube or Netflix... Constituents will complain, the citizens simply won't have it, and then the legislators have a problem. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago Your right, but I can imagine what it would be like, and that's something. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stickyprimer@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago I might not underestimate how much big tech companies hate this too. They are pretty famous about despising all regulation of their space. I wouldn’t put it past them to block a backwater like Utah. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 6 months ago They don’t want every website to do it Are you sure? permalink fedilink source parent