There's a lot of discussion of Mississippi's age verification law for social media today, after Bluesky announced they're blocking the state. Note that Mississippi's requirements go far beyond the Online Safety Act, MIssissippi's law, HB 1126, requires age verification for all users, and parental consent for users under 18., no matter what the content of the site is. Last week the US Supreme Court declined to block the law while it's being challenged in the courts, even though Kavanaugh described it as "likely unconstitutional". The law clearly should be found unconstitutional - the amicus brief from @CenDemTech, @eff et al discusses why. Still, with the current Supreme Court, who knows; they just the (somewhat narrower) Texas age verification law also should have been found unconstitutional, but SCOTUS said it was okay. So who knows. And of course this is exactly the kind of chilling effect they're aiming for, which is why it's so disappointing that SCOTUS didn't block its enforcement until the case is heard. As far as I know there isn't any guidance yet for people running fedi instances (or message boards, which are also covered). If you're running a US-based fedi instance, it's might well be worth talking to your lawyer about this. Here's the legislation, and here's the langauge from Section 4 (1) "A digital service provider may not enter into an agreement with a person to create an account with a digital service unless the person has registered the person's age with the digital service provider. A digital service provider shall make commercially reasonable efforts to verify the age of the person creating an account with a level of certainty appropriate to the risks that arise from the information management practices of the digital service provider."@fediverse @fediversenews #fediverse #mississippi #ageVerification

all 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 43 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'm exhausted with all this. And it's not my fight. The fight belongs to the people of Mississippi. They elected their "leaders."

Until I know for sure that I am not on the hook to pay a $10K penalty for each person on my servers, I've blocked all Mississippi IP addresses from logging in and registering on my Mastodon, Piefed, and Friendica servers.

Wyoming will probably be next.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • Thanks for the update. It really is exhausting, and depressing; you're right about Wyoming being next, and there's loads of others out there as well.

    And It really is our fight to. Laws like this are part of a worldwide attack on independent social media, as well as trans and queer people, people looking for reproductive health care, youth in general, and sex workers. It's a really challenging situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Have you blocked the UK as well then? Same sort of thing here.

    Otherwise why can't you ignore Mississippi but can ignore the UK?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    On feddit.online I block both the UK and France in addition to Mississippi. However, I believe in a future upgrade, PieFed can be configured to block people from specific countries from accessing NSFW and NSFL communities (feddit.online doesn't allow NSFL communities). When that upgrade happens, I will open it again to the UK and France but keep it closed for Mississippi.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Entirely understandable. Like you say, it's not your fight. This is more so if one creates something and isn't even from the US, if the wankers in a specific US state elect shitty government, that's not on you in a wholly different country to go up against.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    This probably shouldn't be marked NSFW?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 19 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    @naught101 it shouldn't, but anything posted on Mastodon with a CW is marked as NSFW on Lemmy. Similarly when the post bridged to Bluesky it got marked as "graphic media" lol. Not sure there's anything I can do about it in either case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Oh wow, did you post this direct from mastodon just by tagging the community? Didn't realise that works, that's super cool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    @naught101 yeah, I just tagged the lemmy community ... and yes it is super cool! although, as the NSFW highlights, somewhat clunky around the edges ... if I don't include a CW here then it figures out the title on its own, and it's not always what I want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thanks for posting about this thenexusofprivacy@infosec.exchange

    I'm interested (in a tired defeatist way) in what I need to do to stay on the right side.

    It sounds like geoblocking is probably the quickest legally safe course of action, so perhaps it's bye Mississippi too...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • yeah it really is tiring and depressing. It isn't clear what the risks really are right now, and how that might change over time. It's also not completely clear how much geoblocking will reduce the risks' at least with the Online Safety Act, regulators said earlier this year that geoblocking is sufficient -- although of course they could change their minds at some point. Really hard to know what to do ...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    US states are turning into legal trolls - that's how you know the empire is done for.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    So, if I understand the whole Bluesky thing correctly, there are apps that don't respect Bluesky's limitations (like having to log in to view certain posts).

    Would those apps skip this as well or is this an actual geo-block?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Other apps can ignore the geoblock. From the Bluesky announcement:

    This decision applies only to the Bluesky app, which is one service built on the AT Protocol. Other apps and services may choose to respond differently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Any recommendations for a good Android app that would ignore things like this?

    I'm currently using the Bluesky app because the ones I tried didn't want to auto open Bluesky links.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Other sites should join to show the citizens how a blacked-out internet looks like.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    As evident by Lemmy instances not doing the same thing. /s

    There's a difference between being decentralized and doing something illegal, you know?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Of course, but whether you're decentralized or not has nothing to do with whether you as someone running a service has to decide for themselves whether to block Mississippi users or risk legal consequences?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If you run any instance that is federated and has users that could sign in from that state it makes complete sense to block their IP addresses. Why on earth would someone running a Mastodon instance take on risk unlless they were in another country where there was no risk of repercussions.

    If you're just hoping that small fish won't get fried that's possibly true. But admins likely won't want to find out if they will just on principles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • The way I view it is that Bluesky is a new company that is growing fast, while a site like Pornhub has been around longer and I'm sure has a large legal team that monitors laws all the time. If Pornhub said it was better to cut their losses and see if waiting out and or not seeing a good legal standing to fight with these states, Bluesky likely didn't have much of a chance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't need to explain anything. If you want to host something with content that is illegal in another state and you choose to not put up any protections to block users from accessing the content in that state, you very well may be sued some day. If you block users from signing up from those states and/or block those IP addresses from accessing your site, you likely would have grounds for it to be dismissed before ever having to do anything. State lines do not protect you against lawsuits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Yeah, don't listen to anybody who says "they can't fine me or sue me if I'm in a different state" or "they can't do anything about it if they win." Of course we don't know who they'll target when they start enforcing the law, and it's possible that the law will be found unconstitutional ... still, they can fine you, and they can sue, so if you decide not to geoblock them yet make sure you're thinking through the risks.

    I haven't seen anything yet on how strong a defense geoblocking Mississippi will be in practice. Bluesky obviously thinks it puts them in a stronger position than not geoblocking, but at this point we really don't know.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-5-1/ALDE_00013024/

    If you are fined in one state they will ask your state to enforce the penalty and they are usually legally required to do so by the federal government.

    The part of Mississippi saying it may have criminal punishments as well may have more leeway, as you won't get extradited if it isn't a felony in most states. But we don't know what the criminal charges would be. At 10,000 per user signed up from their state though, I'd be weary.

    Just be careful, I'm just saying it's risky. I can see them ceasing your assets in another state because it follows the current laws. Otherwise if you found someone guilty in a state court you would just move to another state and be fine, which we know doesn't work, or people like the my pillow guy would just move out of Minnesota where he was found guilty, to say Texas.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    How come plenty federated stuff is also blocking people then? Apparently that alone does not help?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    That's easy.

    Don't enter into an agreement to create an account. Accounts owned by service providers on behalf of users are a scam anyway.

    Instead, let users create their own credentials and allow them to interface with a service. That makes more sense for users anyway, and it sidesteps this sort of nonsense.

  • source