Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

popsci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 316 posts

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#241

Post by godelski »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #183
willcipriano wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as rape with a implied third party threat of violence instead of a first party one. You may feel differently if you feel that men's bodies belong to the state to be used in wars.

The violence was already there. It's not a threat to say and honestly mean "otherwise nothing changes (99% of people pick this option)". The consent issues are all in the forced service itself, and apply to every man equally, whether or not they take the gay proof exemption.

The violence was not "already there." The violence is generated by the men who are not at risk of going to war.

There's an old saying about two people of different nationalities:

  The difference between you and me is smaller than the difference between us and our respective leaders.
Leaders must convince the public that some person in a far away land hates them and is coming to kill them, because otherwise no one gives a fuck. Because frankly, no one is going to come into contact with another. Normal people are not the ones going to invade other countries and claim territory.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#242

Post by valicord »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #178
godelski wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in any way considered “non-consensual”? Wild. Consensual means without coercion and being of sound mind. Let's put it this way, do you consider a quid-pro-quo scenario where a boss will promote or give a raise to a female employee if she has sex with him "consensual?" Obviously this is arguable in both directions (as we could say that this is a contract between two adults, but then again, prostitution is illegal).…

> hat about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" Definite coercion as stated. But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him, I consider that to be a roundabout method of quid-pro-quo prostitution. Plus embezzlement. There's no retaliation if they say no, they go home like everyone else. And the military example…

Am I understanding your position right? If you have 10 employees and say to 1 of them "have sex with me or you're fired" - that's coercion. If you have 10 employees and say to each of them (separately) "have sex with me or you're fired" - also coercion. If you have 10 employees and say to 5 "have sex with me or you're fired" and to the other 5 just "you're fired" - suddenly no longer coercion?

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#243

Post by godelski »

nurettin wrote: post #217
godelski wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposing this was 100% accurate, I'm sure that you could understand that going to pornhub.com or definitelynotgayporn.net would arouse suspicion in a government that is banning such behavior and could cause a person to be under higher scrutiny. So even if you're right that the DNS bypass isn't what would technically get them in trouble, I think you can understand the motivation to encrypt your DNS traffic to ensure…

Misleading and disinformation also comes in the form of FUD, does it not?

You're going to have to clarify what the misleading/disinformation/FUD is. Because I don't see it.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#244

Post by cayde »

ssl-3 wrote: post #231
beretguy wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you mean 1 or 2 GB?

Hah, no. I do mean terabytes. There's ways to get this done (at least here in the US) for those who are sufficiently motivated.

Yes, but its quite unfortunate in that you cannot do what you want with the data you pay for. Even in plan which not unlimited when I buy in visiting USA, I cannot even use the x GB I purchase without restriction.

I should not need to resorting TTL „unsupported hacks“ which also say company will ban me for.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#245

Post by sph »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #168
sph wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only with crappy ISPs like Virgin, which has court-mandated DNS bans for many websites (like ThePirateBay) I use Zen which has no such restriction. Though for safety all my illegal activity is done via VPN because this is still a Five Eyes country.

EE also does this by default (you can turn it off, but you have to contact them) EDIT: or is it Three? I can never remember which company provided the last "burner" SIM I got for each trip to the UK.

It's Three that asks for credit card numbers before watching the nudes.

I actually switched to EE and they have no such restriction.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#246

Post by ssl-3 »

cayde wrote: post #244
ssl-3 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, no. I do mean terabytes. There's ways to get this done (at least here in the US) for those who are sufficiently motivated.

Yes, but its quite unfortunate in that you cannot do what you want with the data you pay for. Even in plan which not unlimited when I buy in visiting USA, I cannot even use the x GB I purchase without restriction. I should not need to resorting TTL „unsupported hacks“ which also say company will ban me for.

Eh? What I pay for with my cheap-shit cellular connectivity is to use as much data as I wish, either on the phone itself and/or for exactly 1 hotspot-connected device, at speeds of up to 5Mbps for that singular hotspot-connected device. I can stay within the operating parameters of the service I signed up for by using up to 5Mbps with hotspot (along with literally-unlimited[1] bandwidth on the phone itself) all of the time, 24/7.

I absolutely do get what I pay for, and I absolutely do what I want with it, and let me tell you: I am not paying very much. I have nothing to complain about here.

But I am not alone when I occasionally extend that to more than one device (using a router), and/or using TTL mangling to negate the 5Mbps limit. I've never witnessed anyone being banned for this (and I've paid close-enough attention to the noises people make that if banning were a common thing, I'd have seen the screaming at least one time by now).

Indeed, some people (in some areas, with some devices) don't seem to have either 5Mbps nor 1-device limits on their phone's built-in hotspot -- without any hacks at all.

And while I have used it (and hacks to improve it) rather extensively at various times and for various reasons, I don't typically use it as a primary Internet connection at home:

While my (also inexpensive) DOCSIS connectivity at home is often slower than what my phone can provide on a given day, I prefer the stability and consistent latency of DOCSIS compared to using my phone's hotspot, and I like having my home LAN always-connected regardless of whether I am at home or not, and also I enjoy having my phone's battery last for days instead of hours between charges (wifi hotspot is a huge battery suck on a phone).

In terms of visiting the States: I don't know what to tell you. I've lived here my whole life so I don't ever travel to the US, but this service is not really intended for visitors. It can probably be made to happen with the help of a friend who does live here, but I don't think anyone but you was ever trying to address any issues of visiting the US here in these threads.

Is there a particular aspect about that concept that you'd like to more-thoroughly address?

I can answer questions.

[1]: Everything has limits, and bandwidth cannot ever be infinite, so "unlimited" is with a grain of salt.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#247

Post by nurettin »

godelski wrote: post #243
nurettin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misleading and disinformation also comes in the form of FUD, does it not?

You're going to have to clarify what the misleading/disinformation/FUD is. Because I don't see it.

Just read Every Single Suggestion in your reply.

> going to pornhub.com or definitelynotgayporn.net would arouse suspicion in a government that is banning such behavior

dns blocking doesn't mean adults are banned from visiting porn sites. You start by contradicting your initial concession of assuming this is 100% accurate.

> and could cause a person to be under higher scrutiny. So even if you're right that the DNS bypass isn't what would technically get them in trouble, I think you can understand the motivation to encrypt your DNS traffic to ensure that you don't get a target painted on your back.

This is a prime example of Fear and uncertainty.

> And given this, I hope how you can understand that your comment does very little to contribute to the actual conversation and can even potentially mislead others. A lot of communication is implicit (otherwise it'd be incredibly cumbersome)

And this is doubt. Never fails to accompany the other two.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#248

Post by Dylan16807 »

godelski wrote: post #239
Dylan16807 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hat about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" Definite coercion as stated. But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him, I consider that to be a roundabout method of quid-pro-quo prostitution. Plus embezzlement. There's no retaliation if they say no, they go home like everyone else. And the military example…

> But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him But we'd still call this coercion. The "dual" of this is "have sex with me or be fired." Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently. > And the military example is similar, there's no retaliation, most men are doing…

> Just because not everyone gets to have that opportunity does not mean it is not the same question stated differently.

To me, it matters significantly if refusing is retaliated against or is neutral.

If having sex with the boss is the difference between 0 firings and 1 firing, that's retaliation. If it's the difference between 95% fired and 100% fired, that's not retaliation.

Also we can say everyone gets the offer if that matters.

-

The other "dual" of this is a version where some employees have already been offered money for sex, but by a completely unrelated party. So if they want they can go take that offer now that they have more free time and only so much severance pay. (Also I am assuming they can get a new job easily enough; there are no destitution-based consent problems in this hypothetical.)

Does consent hinge on who is making the offer?

> There is retaliation, it's called jail.

You misunderstand me. There is no retaliation for not doing the gay sex thing. The default expectation is that you won't do it.

Retaliation for refusing to serve in the military is a different matter. And also why I think the mandatory service is where the actual consent issues are.

Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom

#250

Post by Dylan16807 »

valicord wrote: post #242
Dylan16807 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hat about if we change this to "Have sex with your boss or be fired?" Definite coercion as stated. But if the boss is already set on firing everyone in the department, but lets one or two people stay on if they have sex with him, I consider that to be a roundabout method of quid-pro-quo prostitution. Plus embezzlement. There's no retaliation if they say no, they go home like everyone else. And the military example…

Am I understanding your position right? If you have 10 employees and say to 1 of them "have sex with me or you're fired" - that's coercion. If you have 10 employees and say to each of them (separately) "have sex with me or you're fired" - also coercion. If you have 10 employees and say to 5 "have sex with me or you're fired" and to the other 5 just "you're fired" - suddenly no longer coercion?

No, that's not it.

At its core, it's about whether you're trying to pressure them into sex with you.

I should have specifically said everyone gets the offer, to keep it simple. If the expectation is that basically everyone refuses, then it's not very different from walking around town and telling random people you'll hire them if they have sex with you. Which is just prostitution, not coercion.

Whether someone feels pressured is a difficult communication problem. It's hard to reduce to a simple thought experiment.

Post reply on HN