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

201–210 of 301 posts

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

#201

Post by bryanlarsen »

uncircle wrote: post #53
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.

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.

The tigher, more believable theory is that Meta wants Operating Systems to be responsible for delivering an age or an "over 18 attestation" to apps/websites so it's not Meta's problem.

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

#203

Post by ventana »

It is frightening to see how the latest anti-VPN developments in Russia [1] are somewhat replicated by some US states. For those not following, VPNs are widespread in Russia after the government started blocking popular messengers such as Telegram and websites such as YouTube, and a few weeks ago Russian government instructed major Russian websites (banks, VK social network, etc.) to stop serving users if the website detects the user uses VPN. I read this Utah news as something very similar: an attempt to reduce VPN usage by forcing the websites to collaborate. Feels very wrong to me.

[1]: https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/russias-m...

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

#204

Post by AngryData »

mc32 wrote: post #196
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.

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”.

It is also convient for people to have a single outside source to blame their and their children's problems on. Rather than admit their poltical and economic policies and cultural expectations might all be a bigger problem.

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

#205

Post by Modified3019 »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #197
2ndorderthought wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s for sure not fair for you personally. However it’s also not fair the rest of us have do deal with Russia’s hacking and propaganda organizations that are either directly state run or willfully tolerated. IP blocks don’t fix everything, but they do (or did at least) counter a good portion of the bots for no effort.

You live in a country that is awful to itself and everyone around it, but that’s not something we can fix.

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

#206

Post by wartywhoa23 »

markus_zhang wrote: post #104
bradley13 wrote: post #96

This is happening simultaneously in many Western countries. It is clearly somehow coordinated. You don't need a tinfoil hat to see the conspiracy. Equally clearly, this is a first step to requiring identity, and ultimately government approval for your activities in the internet. Somehow, we really must reign in the political class, before we truly land in a dystopia.

I guess this is just to accelerate the preparation for a total war.

One can't make all cattle pens fight to total mutual extermination without isolating them first, and blocking all information about the farm owners.

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

#208

Post by michaelmrose »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #166
2ndorderthought wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there was an easy way to geolocate ip addresses by us state. It's not too hard to block everything from say russia.

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

Russia and the US are currently attacking and threatening their neighbors in their respective wars of aggression.

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

#209

Post by homtanks »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #183
homtanks wrote: post #151

[flagged]

Produce a succinct, widely-agreed-upon definition of "harmful to children".

The Utah statute defines it as:

> (a) any material that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

> (b) material that exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of any of the following, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors:

> (i) pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals, or nipple of the female breast;

> (ii) touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or

> (iii) sexual intercourse, mastu rbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and

> (c) the material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Sounds reasonable enough, wouldn't you say?

I hope you would agree that children shouldn't be browsing these websites.

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

#210

Post by wartywhoa23 »

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.

Kudos for highlighting this, because almost everyone here seems to be thinking of their own pot, not the whole kitchen.
Post reply on HN