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

191–200 of 301 posts

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

#191

Post by wartywhoa23 »

Aurornis wrote: post #160
shaftoe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused where all of this censorship is originating from. What wave of efforts is culminating? I can't really explain this from any movement I can see.

> What wave of efforts is culminating? I can't really explain this from any movement I can see. Look at any thread about social media, TikTok, smartphones, or porn sites on Hacker News: They are instantly filled with comments claiming that the internet is to blame for all of society's ills with younger generations. The HN threads fill with comments proposing that we ban children from having smartphones until they're…

> Abstract ideas about banning kids from social media or porn sites are weirdly very popular even here

It's absolutely not weird. HN is the propaganda outlet for the geeks.

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

#192

Post by ronsor »

Lucasoato wrote: post #93
iLoveOncall wrote: post #3

Here's the website of Utah's governor if you want to access it via a VPN: https://www.votecox.com/

No GDPR banner, even if visiting the website from EU

Realistically domestic US politicians have no reason to care about EU regulations

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

#193

Post by fn-mote »

xkcd1963 wrote: post #84
uncircle wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep reading this but I don't understand how a company might want to push censorship on users. What is the economic benefit of censorship? Does Meta's bottom line increase if there is no illegal content and every user is age verified on the site? Would Meta care if you use a VPN? The ones that stand to benefit the most are the governments themselves and their surveillance network.

They realized all the data on user behaviour is useless after trying to leverage on it with LLMs and now they go after seemingly new riches

Useless data??

There is a massive revenue stream that says this is completely off base.

The data they have is already extremely valuable.

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

#194

Post by 2ndorderthought »

flemhans wrote: post #187
mvdwoord wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without it being good or bad (long term, second order effects), I do think all of these (proposed) laws and where we are heading will balkanize the internet. Alternative tech may sound appealing to the tinkerers, and they may keep certain important channels alive (think radio amateurs... they know this game) but for the masses? I already happily block entire countries or regions to my VPS as there is zero benefit for…

Which countries are you already blocking?

Had to check my settings. Russia, Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia. Have any further suggestions?

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

#195

Post by kmeisthax »

progval wrote: post #82
OccamsMirror wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all coming from Meta: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh... Big tech wants regulatory capture.

There is no evidence it is actually coming from Meta. The Reddit researcher the article cites generated their entire "analysis" in three days using Claude: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47659552 Their website also added this page since I posted that comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20260411112604/https://tboteproj... where they claim their website is under "surveillance" because it got a few thousand reque…

In the interest of removing TBOTE Project from the discussion, I found this press release from the office of Buffy Wicks, saying Google and Facebook[0] support AB 1043: https://wicks.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250909-google-meta-...

Ironically I had to go into Google's AI mode and ask it three times not to use any TBOTE Project sources before it would give me the actual original source on this. But the article has a bunch of quotes from big tech lobbyists in support of California's age surveillance bills. Whether or not it was originally their idea is still up in the air, but given that the California, Colorado, and New York bills were largely identical, it's not crazy to say "maybe these were all Big Tech's idea".

I also have this Bloomberg article from 2025 (a year ago) claiming Meta funds the Digital Childhood Alliance[1], which has been pushing for "App Store Accountability Acts" that would mandate app stores do all the age verification (conveniently for Facebook).

Or maybe it was ALEC. :P

[0] It is always ethical to deadname corporations.

[1] https://archive.is/7vqL6

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

#196

Post by mc32 »

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.

There seems to be a growing movement worldwide to restrict social media to under (some teenage range). I understand some of frustration. It comes from the increase in mental health issues with minors… but they are using that as cover to overreach and impose censorship for many. An alternate method is stop social media etc from abusing their users with algorithms favoring “engament”.

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

#197

Post by wartywhoa23 »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #190
wartywhoa23 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's all block whole countries just because our propagandists brainwashed us so, yay, what an Internet that'll be!

I haven't had a single person in my life or social media inform me of a single thing I have missed out on since blocking Russia and several other hostile nations with my firewall. I've been doing this for about 15 years. No regrets so far. I understand your philosophy but it doesn't match my reality.

Am I a hostile one for you, being a Russian who has to bypass both domestic blocks of the outbound traffic and (much more rare) "hostile nation" geoip blocks on the other side via VPNs just to read that damn article, mind you, not to hack anyone?

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

#198

Post by wartywhoa23 »

martin-t wrote: post #162
rapnie wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am completely baffled by this wave of new laws and proposals... they feel dystopic Baffled? The whole country's democracy is diving off this cliff, seems to me.

It's not just the US though, EU too. I don't like far fetched conspiracy theories but I really want to know where all this is coming from. Did politicians suddenly all get the same idea or are there groups lobbying for this who benefit in terms of money/power?

It's the whole world.

I'm sorry to tell this, but everyone will soon realize that the far-fetched conspiracy theories are in fact severly underestimated conspiracy practices.

If they still have any remaining gut to face the reality, that is.

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

#199

Post by 2ndorderthought »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #190
wartywhoa23 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's all block whole countries just because our propagandists brainwashed us so, yay, what an Internet that'll be!

I haven't had a single person in my life or social media inform me of a single thing I have missed out on since blocking Russia and several other hostile nations with my firewall. I've been doing this for about 15 years. No regrets so far. I understand your philosophy but it doesn't match my reality.

Warty. I doubt you personally are. But unfortunately your country has engaged in a lot of troublesome activities. We can connect through a 3rd party like we are now that's fine with me. I don't hate all Russians or anything like that.

I see no reason to directly connect to any Russian Internet infrastructure though.

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

#200

Post by fauigerzigerk »

nine_k wrote: post #173
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is grasping at straws. Centralised social media platforms have won long ago for completely different reasons (mostly network effects and convenience). They haven't been threatened by independent sites for ages.

Facebook in particular many times voiced its support for various regulations that would be onerous for smaller players.

Does that mean they actually support these regulations or could it mean that they think sounding supportive benefits them?

Even if they really did support a particular regulation, it could be to prevent a version of the same regulation that actually has teeth.

Or it could mean they hope to be consulted on the details of any regulation, which is more likely to happen if they sound constructive.

Corporations constantly navigate the political and regulatory landscape. You can't just take "supportive" statements like these at face value.

And finally there's the general fallacy of thinking that if B happens and A wanted it to happen then A must have caused B.

Post reply on HN