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

251–260 of 301 posts

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

#251

Post by wartywhoa23 »

hacker161 wrote: post #246
wartywhoa23 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It is zionism, which is orthogonal to semitism, that was chosen as the blame-shifting cover for the message, to put both proponents and opponents of said message on the false trail, but that's not how they should be read. The Protocols should be read as the message from those who are absolutelty corrupt with absolute power and want to remain in that power forever, regardless of the mask they wear. And they always…

It’s nice you’re comfortable outing yourself as a freak who reads and agrees with the Protocols of the Elder Zion.

Agrees? I appreciate your efforts at painting me as a freak, but could you please quote the exact part of my reply that in your optinion supports your claim about my agreement with the Protocols?

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

#252

Post by thfuran »

rirze wrote: post #161
macintux wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many users are going to have the technical acumen & desire to keep playing the game? At some point the number of people who are going to be able to succeed is so small they might know who you are just by virtue of you continuing to compete.

All you need is one and a good business model. Modern adblocking emerged exactly in the same way. The majority of people who use adblock have no idea what current techniques and methods are used.

>a good business model

What exactly does that mean when the entire business is inherently illegal?

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

#253

Post by EvanAnderson »

homtanks wrote: post #229
EvanAnderson wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? You're willfully ignoring the "culture war" aspects of "a" and "c".

Why don't you explain what you mean instead of making unsubstantiated claims about what you think I'm ignoring?

I suspect this is the output of an agent and not a human conversing in good faith.

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

#254

Post by bryan_w »

kmeisthax wrote: post #177
luisfmh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read a take somewhere that seemed to make sense. They don't want to get stuck with the liabilities of the content that gets posted on their platforms. So by forcing the age verification onto the users, forcing users to identify and track themselves, they can have a "clean" route to someone who posts illicit content on their platforms. It just sucks that that's all in sacrifice of our privacy.

The thing that makes this plausible is that the California and Colorado bills are specifically written to either allow or outright require self-attestation. Children will just lie about their ages because if they don't, the computer is basically useless. So it would give Meta the ability to dodge lawsuits, but still actually have kids on their dangerous platforms, with the argument of "well, the law makes us trust th…

> Children will just lie

Not if the parents are setting it up beforehand (like with small children) then their iaccount or Google account will be under parental controls from that point on.

It seems reasonable that if a parent enables their child to visit sites after that, then that's just their prerogative (like giving your kid beer)

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

#255

Post by martin-t »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #198
martin-t wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, please...

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

#256

Post by abustamam »

iamnothere wrote: post #239
abustamam wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your solution to fighting against authoritarian regimes is to be rich enough to fuck off to another state/country?

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

#257

Post by kstrauser »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #240
kstrauser wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which part of what I said couldn’t be argued in court by an ambitious prosecutor?

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

#258

Post by OutOfHere »

abustamam wrote: post #256
iamnothere wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your solution to fighting against authoritarian regimes is to be rich enough to fuck off to another state/country?

That would be an unfair reframing. The original intent was that erasing their tax revenue weakens the authoritarian regime by draining it of the resources needed for enforcement of unfair laws.

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

#259

Post by iamnothere »

abustamam wrote: post #256
iamnothere wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So your solution to fighting against authoritarian regimes is to be rich enough to fuck off to another state/country?

There’s not really another good solution. At some point it will collapse on itself due to ever-compounding errors, but until then, the current structure simply absorbs all attempts to fight it. I can’t remember who pointed this out (I think it’s derived from a point originally made by Marcuse) but the difference between what we are facing in the West versus “traditional” authoritarianism is that all opposition in the West is commodified and co-opted before it can become a real threat. This is partially because our domestic oppression is typically subtle (economic and systemic) rather than obvious (forceful and directional). Force may be used in isolated instances or against already marginalized groups, but it’s not felt as a daily threat by most of the population as it is in more openly violent regimes. There is no real fear of stepping out of line, in fact stepping out of line is celebrated as long as you can then be steered into a commoditized and controlled “protest” channel.

If you aren’t able to leave, the next best thing is getting to know likeminded (and intelligent/effective) people and setting up mutual aid networks, or failing to find that, to acquire the tools, resources, and skills needed to ride out the coming years as best you can.

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

#260

Post by nunez »

mycall wrote: post #125
nunez wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily. Host them on the cloud providers? You get banned. Host them in your homelab and the ISP finds out? You get your Internet cut. How will either of them find out? IP addresses and/or DPI. All it'll take is an executive order or an act of Congress.

There are plenty of other ways to virtual data without a VPN, e.g. sockpuppets, ipfs, etc. Since data tends to drift towards being free, it is a game of wack-a-mole.

all much slower and annoying to use

fine if privacy is of utmost priority

not fine if you want to stream youtube without region locks.

Post reply on HN