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

Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 301 posts

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#231

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Avicebron wrote: post #156
davkan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there broad support for digital ID, age verification, etc? Or is it a broad sentiment that kids shouldn’t be on social media. Everyone I know agrees with latter but almost no one supports the former.

The parent commenter is conflating two things. Your right, there can be broad general sentiment that "kids probably shouldn't on social media, or better framed, social media in it's current iteration isn't healthy for people especially kids" but that doesn't imply people are asking for intrusive surveillance or to be monitored at all times when they are online.

> that doesn't imply people are asking for intrusive surveillance or to be monitored at all times when they are online

There is strong demand for regulation and low awareness of the surveillance consequences. We don’t have anyone advocating for a privacy-preserving solution, not effectively at least. Given the demand for something to be done, each jurisdiction is basically taking from the first available option.

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#232

Post by JumpCrisscross »

davkan wrote: post #138
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no evidence it is actually coming from Meta My personal view that social media should be age gated is caused by Meta. But broadly, polling shows a commanding majority (60+ percent) of Americans believe in restrictions for under 14s.

Is there broad support for digital ID, age verification, etc? Or is it a broad sentiment that kids shouldn’t be on social media. Everyone I know agrees with latter but almost no one supports the former.

Two thirds of Americans believe in "setting limits on how much time minors can spend on social media" [1]. Where we have limited polling, a similar fraction support "banning social media use for all kids under 14" [2].

These are policy polls. The sentiment has moved beyond vague notions that kids should be entrusted to Meta less.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/31/81-of-us-...

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/poll-most-mass-voters-su...

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#233

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tardedmeme wrote: post #174
davkan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there broad support for digital ID, age verification, etc? Or is it a broad sentiment that kids shouldn’t be on social media. Everyone I know agrees with latter but almost no one supports the former.

Everyone agrees kids shouldn't be on social media. Some people think this should be done by your phone asking if you're over 18 when you set it up, which is one way to go about it. Some other people hijacked this proposal to make your phone verify if you're over 18 because they want your identification.

And then most people just want a ban. So politicians, working as they often do in a technical vacuum, treat it like the other things we age gate.

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#234

Post by OutOfHere »

nephihaha wrote: post #5
OutOfHere wrote: post #2

People need to do their best to stop paying so much in taxes to their state governments, failing which the governments get increasingly authoritarian. The state governments clearly have run out of real problems to solve, and when they do, they then attack basic freedoms. Keeping them strongly tax-constrained keeps them lean. As it stands, these governments are representing special interests, not the people. It doesn'…

This is happening worldwide.

It is not happening in destitute countries, is it? If you have normalized and given up already, then your fight is already lost.

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#235

Post by lxgr »

jmyeet wrote: post #211
lxgr wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Internet has broken down that structure such that there are no limitations and, like it or not, that's really harmful. Widespread access to sports betting and crypto gambling [...] Your analysis disregards the evidence of several decades in which the Internet existed, but gambling was still broadly illegal and getting around those laws was anything but trivial (since blocking financial flows is, or at least use…

> Your analysis disregards the evidence of several decades in which the Internet existed, but gambling was still broadly illegal and getting around those laws was anything but trivial (since blocking financial flows is, or at least used to be, pretty effective). I'm not sure what the point of this comment is because it basically translates to "getting around gambling restrictions used to be difficult but it no longer…

My point is that this recent popularity of gambling is largely a result of the explicit decision by legislators in many US states to legalize online gambling. I don’t think crypto factored in that much.

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#236

Post by m463 »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #8

VPNs are on their way toward being banned and/or heavily regulated. I imagine what will happen is a requirement for VPN providers to "know your customer" just as banks do, and for them to be able to tie a particular traffic stream back to a specific human.

how will they ban the icloud proxy? Or is it not really a vpn?

or the firefox vpn?

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#237

Post by leshenka »

mrbluecoat wrote: post #44
Nifty3929 wrote: post #8

VPNs are on their way toward being banned and/or heavily regulated. I imagine what will happen is a requirement for VPN providers to "know your customer" just as banks do, and for them to be able to tie a particular traffic stream back to a specific human.

How will they ban self-hosted VPNs? https://mrbluecoat.blogspot.com/2025/08/self-hosted-vpn-opti...

Easy:

- know ip ranges of popular cloud providers and deny service. Not bulletproof but enough to make it a pain in the ass so people don’t bother

- make it illegal to offer this kind of service for the purpose of evading location detection. Put pressure on Apple and Google, force them to remove vpn apps

You guys need to start reading on Russia's war on internet and treat it as a cautionary tale

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#238

Post by nephihaha »

OutOfHere wrote: post #234
nephihaha wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is happening worldwide.

It is not happening in destitute countries, is it? If you have normalized and given up already, then your fight is already lost.

I don't know what the deal in developing countries is with this, but it is popping up on multiple continents. The PRC doesn't need it since their internet is so heavily controlled (although I gather workarounds exist), and it does feel like the west is copying the PRC.

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#239

Post by iamnothere »

abustamam wrote: post #230
iamnothere wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make less, pay less. If you’ve had a successful career already, you may be able to “drop out” and find a place to live cheaply. I’ve heard good things about Panama.

If you've had a successful career already you probably already paid a lot of taxes, unless you're a billionaire in which case you're not paying taxes anyway.

The best time to start making a lifestyle change was years ago, but the second best time is today.

If you can legally opt out, there’s no good reason to keep pouring tax dollars into a corrupt, possibly unfixable system.

Re: Utah to hold websites liable for users who mask their location with VPNs

#240

Post by cosmicgadget »

kstrauser wrote: post #148
cosmicgadget wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are okay: > Commercial entities that host "a substantial portion of material harmful to minors" are now prohibited from facilitating or encouraging the use of a VPN to bypass age checks. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/utahs-new-law-regulati...

I have an Amazon affiliate link on my website. Now it’s technically commercial. I say things in support of my LGBTQ friends and neighbors. Now it’s technically harmful to minors. This isn’t a slippery slope. It’s already an avalanche.

I don't think that is accurate but you seem to have decided.
Post reply on HN