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

'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

remysharp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 185 posts

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#161

Post by KPGv2 »

mmooss wrote: post #102
KPGv2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just loaded up Bluesky this morning to discover it demanding proof of my age bc I live in Texas. First thing I did was turn on my out-of-state vpn and try again. not today, satan!

Instead of an out-of-state vpn, why not an out-of-state home? Why do people put up with the lack of freedom there? People complain about European countries but then praise states like Texas. (Realistically, moving is easier said than done, of course.)

People with my HHI level don't experience any of the negative effects of Republican policies except for the ones externalized to the entire USA.

And people without my HHI can't afford to leave.

You might as well wonder why people still live in Hungary when it's part of the EU and they could all move to Germany or Sweden.

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#162

Post by freedomben »

Markoff wrote: post #41
freedomben wrote: post #2

VPNs are just tools that sketchy people use for sketchy means. There's no legitimate use for someone who isn't trying to break the law. Allowing these tools let's underage people access porn, and do all manner of undesirable behaviors like accessing region locked content. I have actually heard otherwise intelligent people say things just like that, including site operators who run nontrivial websites. There are of co…

flagged for intentional ragebait, if this wasn't ragebait you would have used quotes

I considered it, but it wasn't a direct quote so quotes felt misleading. It was a paraphrase of opinions I've heard expressed by various people in the past

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#163

Post by KPGv2 »

mmooss wrote: post #153
Cider9986 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A VPN is 5 dollars. People are not as privileged as you assume and very few chose their location based on age verification laws. European countries have restrictions on freedom of speech which is a strongly held value in America.

I'm not sure what to say that doesn't repeat myself. I can add to my prior comment that many Republican-run states, including Texas, restrict freedom of speech and other freedoms in many ways.

Rich people aren't restricted, middle class people want those restrictions, and poor people can't leave.

I assume you're not America, because people outside the USA think literally the exact same thing about Americans.

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#164

Post by KPGv2 »

zabriel_goss wrote: post #81
KPGv2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just loaded up Bluesky this morning to discover it demanding proof of my age bc I live in Texas. First thing I did was turn on my out-of-state vpn and try again. not today, satan!

FYI, this recently changed to only apply to the mobile app. Browser access and 3rd party apps are not restricted.

That explains why I only discovered it now. I usually use my laptop wth a browser, not an app.

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#165

Post by [deleted] »

xoa wrote: post #16

This is a very brief blog blurb linking the original Tech Radar article that got fairly extensive discussion on HN a week and a half ago [0]. Potentially quite an important one though so a second go around may still be very justified for those who missed it last time. Amidst a lot of negative moves around the net recently it's nice to see some sanity at least once in awhile. ---- 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?…

[deleted]

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#166

Post by gpvos »

inigyou wrote: post #103
trvz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the big VPN companies known from advertisments all over the internet are probably honeypots of the usual countries.

Not probably - most of them are confirmed.

Why so secretive? Share the list.

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#167

Post by gpvos »

latexr wrote: post #44
NotHereNotThere wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His second sentence is "There's no legitimate use for someone who isn't trying to break the law." I'm not trying to break the law, I use it for my corporate usage, therefore it is legitimate use. What are you trying to say?

> What are you trying to say? Pretty sure they meant “second paragraph” instead of “second sentence”.

Yeah, that comment is a textbook example of failure to communicate.

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#168

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

alias_neo wrote: post #157
WalterGR wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It didn't know there was a quota on discussions of any particular topic It’s in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#reposts “Are reposts ok? If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates.” Alternately, here are comments by moderator dang that mention reposting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&…

Reposts is one thing, but the person I replied to was gatekeeping the discussion. If the post is flagged, that does the job of solving that for us, but telling people not to start a discussion on a subject "because we've been there before" is S tier gatekeeping, and that's what I was opposing.

There are some HN commenters that try to do this on a regular basis, either trying to prevent discussion, redirect it or get it moved to another thread

For example,

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ChrisArchitect

It's quite strange to submit something that obviously isn't going to get any discussion, this is a _news aggregator_ not a "discussion aggregator", only to see the same commenter repeatedly leave some asinine comment about "duplication"

This submission is not a "[dupe]" as in "duplicate URL". As one can clearly see here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=remysharp.com

It has not been submitted before

So what's the big deal. If it isn't interesting then it will be ignored, right

As it happens, submissions that cover a topic also covered by other submissions routinely get upvotes and even promoted to page one, as with this one

It is not clear what these "gatekeepers" are hoping to accomplish, but something is getting to them and it probably isn't HN. For example, the previous discussion of this CJEU decision veered off on tangents having nothing to do with the decision. To suggest there is no comment one could make now that was not in the previous thread is laughable. That thread contained almost zero commentary about the decision itself. Perhaps the "gatekeepers" do not like the nature of the commentary they are seeing. Who knows

HN voters, e.g., this submission already has 418 points, and other commenters who have been "touching grass" and are not bothered by the repetitive nature of HN, greatly outnumber these gatekeepers

Neverthless, their quest to quash or redirect discussion for whatever reason, and it's reasonable to question whether it is truly "duplication", may succeed, at least temporarily, as "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"

This submission will probably get ejected from page one soon

But it stands to reason that HN is much more than the noisiest HN commenters

In terms of numbers, maybe something like

HN readers (no account) >> HN users (potential voters) >> HN commenters >> "gatekeepers"

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#169

Post by mmooss »

KPGv2 wrote: post #163
mmooss wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what to say that doesn't repeat myself. I can add to my prior comment that many Republican-run states, including Texas, restrict freedom of speech and other freedoms in many ways.

Rich people aren't restricted, middle class people want those restrictions, and poor people can't leave. I assume you're not America, because people outside the USA think literally the exact same thing about Americans.

I know it's hard to move for most people. People just love to lecture, even when I already addressed that in my first comment.

Re: 'VPNs are lawful technical tools,' says EU Court in landmark copyright ruling

#170

Post by mmooss »

KPGv2 wrote: post #161
mmooss wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of an out-of-state vpn, why not an out-of-state home? Why do people put up with the lack of freedom there? People complain about European countries but then praise states like Texas. (Realistically, moving is easier said than done, of course.)

People with my HHI level don't experience any of the negative effects of Republican policies except for the ones externalized to the entire USA. And people without my HHI can't afford to leave. You might as well wonder why people still live in Hungary when it's part of the EU and they could all move to Germany or Sweden.

What is HHI level?

What you say isn't entirely true. Lot's of people are moving to Texas (and Florida), thus they are able to move. Lots of wealthy people go out of their way to praise Texas.

The answer is really politics, I think. The most important states economically and culturally, NY and California, are liberal. Conservatives are looking for a flag-bearer.

Post reply on HN