all 38 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 52 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Have any of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord implemented age-checks in Mississippi then?

If not, why is Bluesky the only one going dark there?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Bluesky is a small indie company. It can't afford to fight the law or implement the extensive age verification the law requires. So it chose to pull the plug and leave.

    FB, X, etc, have a lot more resources to implement the extensive, invasive age verification Mississippi requires and keep fighting it in court until the decision upholding it is final.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm of the opinion that even if it is final, at some points laws are so ridiculous they must cease to be effective for all.

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

    Tbh my first thought was "ehh people can just vpn around it then" which is basically just saying its easily circumventable and i know no instance of legal issues for those that do.

    Still a net negative for that state though and the more laws and circumvemtion becomes more common the more people are thrown into the precarius class (see immigrants in the US now).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Because Bluesky isn't a real decentralized platform

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    This is bullshit. It should be on mississippi to block the sites or require local isps to block them. The providers are on the internet and not going out to be in mississippi. Places should wall themselves off if they can't handle the internet.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Or - hear me out here - it shouldn't be on anybody to do anything because the law itself is garbage and should not exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    But the question is, what would be a reasonable legal principle for preventing such laws generally? Mississippi is going to pass bullshit laws, but it shouldn't be possible for the jurisdiction of any state to be anything on the entire internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it's against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there's always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).

    Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn't the thing that matters, it's whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.

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

    You're right. Imagine having to put more resources into Mississippi than Mississippi puts into anything.

    How would other countries have responded if instead of building The Great Firewall, China had demanded each international company not allow Chinese citizens within China to access certain parts of their websites?

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

    Malicious compliance:

    • "Are you too old to have flown on the Lolita Express with Epstein and Trump?"
    • "Are you young enough to be employed as a 'towel girl' at the Mar a Lago massage parlour?"
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Just go away with age verification. You are breaking the internet with this non sense. Eg. Providing passports will only cause exploits and leaks, with all its consequences.

    If you want to protect your children, then maybe the parents should protect them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Just have age verification on an ISP-level at this point.

    That's a little bit of a joke. But think about it. Kids don't just find Tiktok hidden among the grass. Their parents give them a phone, give them a computer, a data plan and a wifi password without any parental controls. Then they blame Tiktok when their child commits suicide (possibly had nothing to do with tiktok).

    I think maybe have ISPs become the accountable ones. Have them automatically enable parental controls, or emit a second network for kids, and add a waiver to the settings when you go to disable parental controls absolving them of any accountability and placing it on the parents.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I really don’t want ISPs policing internet traffic more than they already do. I think you’re right though. Router level second network filtering that blocks VPNs. Block the kids MAC addresses from the primary. This needs to be on parents.

    That same kid could go to a nudy video store and steal something. They could get into all sorts of 18+ physical stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't understand. Does an instance hosted anywhere outside of this US backwater state have anything to fear from this? Why is Eugen being contacted all the way in Germany?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    They're primarily in Germany but there is some US presence too. From the join Mastodon site:

    Mastodon, Inc. (EIN 92-3333630) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity in the United States that supports the growth and operational capabilities of Mastodon, including being able to receive tax-deductible U.S. donations and in-kind support.

    Oops

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago
    31 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [+] 85 points 1 year ago (18 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The fuck are they gonna do?

    Arrest random teenagers and claim their browser history or installed app list marks out as pedophiles

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (14 children)
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not if the instance isn't subject to their jurisdiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm sorry, what? I'm new to Lemmy and a m using summit app, is there a way for me to utilize this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Its so ironic how roghts are erroded under the guise of child protection, while they protect pedophiles.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Nostr and fediverse: hold my beer

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Immune, no, insanely hard to police? Hell yeah. The thing with these laws is that it's pretty easy for MS to sue Reddit and force them to comply. They have one centralized location to complain to. You can't just call John Lemmy and have him comply. Would it be impossible for a state government to contact every single instance owner? maybe? But they're not going to do it. Even if they made an attempt the instances hosted in other countries couldn't give less shits about some southern US state.

    Nostr is a whole other beast... it's currently littered with things illegal in just about every country on the planet but that shit's still there so I can't imagine MS could do anything there either.

    TLDR: Immune, no. Neigh impossible to enforce, yes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    If I remember right .world is hosted in Finland. Who likely doesn't care about MS politics. They'd have to lobby the Finnish government, who, if they did capitulate would start an awful president. So they won't as MS has 0 authority there. But, lets assume that they did, or that MS went to all of the ISPs and had them block .world. That's thousands of dollars, hundreds of hours, lawyers, and paperwork. And the .world users in MS just download their config files and move to .de, .ca, or .uk. And now MS gets to repeat the entire process at three more countries who couldn't care less about their laws. The would waste unfathomable dollars and hours chasing this mouse and get nowhere. So they just won't. It's posturing for the big tech companies. Same as with porn. The big 3 or 4 will just block the state and move on, and the rest and those hosted in other countries will continue like nothing happened. The conservatives will claim they won 'for the children', nothing will really change.

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

    Sidenote: when did Masnick become such a choad?

  • source