Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tor Project.
The tor network is really not built for streaming and you slow it down for everyone else when you do.
GP didn't mention streaming.
Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
281–290 of 316 posts
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#282Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and "foregone conclusion" I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. > your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. Not understanding this is probably why you're not understanding the rest. I'm not sure how you don't get it because if you're gay you're not going to military service and you're not going to ja…
> I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that? > This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. I said if you don't take the gay option , your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else. Y…
> The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions.
I'm convinced of this. But this is not what you said.
In fact, that's kinda the theme of this conversation and the one you're having with others
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#284Anecdote: I stayed in the Airbnb of an (obviously gay) couple in the South-Eastern very conservative Turkish city of Mersin many years ago. The absolute joy they had when I showed them how to set up 1.1.1.1 on their Android TV, phones, and laptops… so they could watch unrestricted gay porn in their heavily censored and state-controlled slice of the World Wide Web… I still get a virtual greeting card from them once in…
This story is oddly wholesome.
Thanks haha
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
VPNs still make it possible to access everything. Gotta have to ban these as well. It seems like regulatory overreach into something which in the grand scheme of things is a very small problem. Today it's porn sites, what will it be tomorrow? Once in place, such laws will be very hard to repeal out of "think of the children" concern. In reality, such laws are never just about children. Also, what even counts as a por…
The goal isn't to cut access. It's to cut access for children. And again, just because they can find a way doesn't excuse businesses doing exactly nothing to avoid serving them as customers, which they know is already illegal . Most children don't have the means to buy VPN access. There are also off-the-shelf routers that block common VPN protocols (though that may mostly only exist for business tier equipment right…
Brilliant argument against centralization of the web
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm unconvinced and be hard pressed to be. The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. Why are you not convinced of that? > This is absolutely not true and is literally the entire reason people go to great lengths to do it. I said if you don't take the gay option , your fate is the same as if you had never been asked. You do military service or go to jail, like everyone else. Y…
> The leaders do bad things whether or not a few gay people join or get exemptions. I'm convinced of this. But this is not what you said. In fact, that's kinda the theme of this conversation and the one you're having with others
When I said "otherwise nothing changes", what did you think I meant?
I thought it was reasonably clear I was talking about how this gay exemption plays out, not the entire world of possibilities.
And for the line that says "your fate is the same", I made that very direct and explicit and you somehow skipped half of the sentence to interpret it in an entirely different way. That one is definitely not my fault.
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever tried abstaining? You'll find you're not as liberated as you thought.
How very Christian. We're all "slaves to sin" and "idols" where "sin and idols" just means "anything people like doing", because it's hard to stop doing something you like.
It means anything that destroys and leads to misery. Hopefully you see that someday.
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
How very Christian. We're all "slaves to sin" and "idols" where "sin and idols" just means "anything people like doing", because it's hard to stop doing something you like.
It means anything that destroys and leads to misery. Hopefully you see that someday.
How very droll and condescending of you. The Golden Rule is to treat others how you'd like to be treated, so I can assume you want to be treated in a droll and condescending matter in turn, so allow me to oblige:
A: What is sin?
B: Anything that destroys and leads to misery.
A: Do X or Y actually destroy or lead to misery, or is it moral panic, pseudoscience, misery more caused by socially enforced guilt caused by the belief that X or Y is bad, some combination of the above?
[B and A engage in an interminable discussion, and eventually B's Heritage Foundation links are exhausted]
A: it doesn't seem clear that any of these things "destroy" anything, or inherently cause misery.
B: Well X or Y must be bad, because they're sin, so they seem gross and bad to me. There must be hidden detriments that scientists are unwilling to admit, or just haven't gotten around to proving yet. Just wait, when you grow up you'll think just like me.
A: maybe.
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think security professionals are lying. I think "security professional" is a meaningless descriptor like "thought leader" that one applies to themselves, and they shouldn't be given any specific credibility. At the end of the day, I agree we should have stronger data protection and retention regulations, federally even. That's an orthogonal issue to whether adult services online should require some validation…
> I don't think security professionals are lying. I think "security professional" is a meaningless descriptor like "thought leader" that one applies to themselves You don't believe that people who study security for a living might know more about it? Certainly software security experts should be given more credibility about software security than politicians should be given. I'm not sure I've ever run into the view b…
They're orthogonal issues because you can address one, the other, neither, or both totally independently. We can have very strict data protection laws and also have strict id checking for regulated industries.
I'm well aware of RTA labels. I've pointed them out on similar threads. They're also not ideal (given that they're basically "yes/no" which will necessarily lead to arguments about what should be classified), but like I said, I'm inclined to prefer that kind of approach. Something like mandate commercial sites and commercial browsers (which is every major one) to implement it or something like it, with criminal liability for commercial porn sites that fail to do so.
That said, not all sites do implement it. e.g. reddit and redgifs do not, and reddit also hosts forums specifically targeted at children. Those two sites are very high traffic and are completely negligent here. Also, content can't be blocked at the router level if it's using TLS, which of course almost all of these sites do (you could potentially do SNI sniffing against a host blacklist, but even that will go away with ECH). Perhaps the "evil bit" could be used for that purpose at the IP layer so it works with TLS.
Generally, the more I think about it, it does seem "reasonable" to just say businesses dealing in adult restricted materials are liable for determining their customer is an adult (to a standard that a reasonable person would believe), and websites are not an exception unless it was e.g. a defacement. Let them figure out how to do it, and if the government can collect evidence that they failed to do so, they can charge them with distribution to minors. The sites can come up with their own system according to their risk tolerance. Basically, just raise (or introduce) the bar for negligence.
Alcohol distributors don't seem to have a problem doing this. Perhaps porn distributors can ask them for help.
Re: Porn restrictions are leading to a VPN boom
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only the DNS lookups. Not the content of what you’re viewing over https. Everything after domain name is encrypted
SNI header from TLS handshake is unencrypted so service providers (and Government's packet inspection engines) absolutely do see what website you are visiting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Name_Indication Server Name Indication payload is not encrypted, thus the hostname of the server the client tries to connect to is visible to a passive eavesdropper. This protocol weakness was exploited by security software…
But the SNI hostname will only include everything left of the TLD. So that is the TLD, the domain name, and the subdomain. It excludes the rest of the URL.
If you have installed a root cert to allow the government to MITM, then there isn't really anything you can do...