this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
236 points (97.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26995 readers
1343 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"The SCOPE Act takes effect this Sunday, Sept. 1, and will require everyone to verify their age for social media."

So how does this work with Lemmy? Is anyone in Texas just banned, is there some sort of third party ID service lined up...for every instance, lol.

But seriously, how does Lemmy (or the fediverse as a whole) comply? Is there some way it just doesn't need to?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 147 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Why should it affect LW or any other (non-Texan) instance? Any rogue country with populists at the head can implement any arbitrary legislation. That does not affect Lemmy instances hosted in countries with reasonable governments. If Texas wants to enforce their rules (or punish for non-compliance), it is on them to approach instance admins or block the site in their corner of the global internet.

[–] FarFarAway@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a fair view. I'm not sure anyone has gotten that far, especially outside the country.

Heres an article about a similar bill in Utah, that hasn't gone into effect yet.

What's not clear from the Utah bill and others is how the states plan to enforce the new regulations.

I mean if the general consensus is that it doesn't apply, then, cool.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 84 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I live in Texas, and can confidently tell you the people writing these laws have no fundamental concept of what the internet is or how to implement or enforce such a law for consistent adherence.

I can also tell you with confidence this law will be wielded with impunity against specific companies/sites our corrupt, petulant AG decides to go after. Fuck Ken Paxton.

As far as users in Texas, this is nothing a VPN can't fix.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They think it’s a big truck that you can just dump something on

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is there a way to put a VPN on the router, so that all devices are covered?

[–] Zedd00@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Absolutely. Most "travel routers" have openvpn installed on them. I have one router set up with my normal internet, and another with a full time vpn'd connection. The VPN router was like $60.

They're also great to have when traveling. It connects to whatever random wifi, and all of your devices show up as a single device. You turn off the VPN to connect to your hotel's capture portal, then turn it back on and all of your devices have secure internet.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ninja@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I can absolutely see Texas looking at it the other way. "Your website can be accessed by our citizens? On you to comply with our laws." They then spit out a bunch of criminal charges that make things rather inconvenient for some instance hosts. The US reach into international banking systems is uncomfortably long.

The real problem question is about federation. You can post to an instance from any federated instance. If an account is created in one instance and the user posts to a federated instance are both liable? You have to be able to create accounts AND post to be subject to the law. Can one instance not allow posts but host accounts for participation in other instances to skirt around the law?

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That would require jurisdiction to charge them anyways. They do not have such power.

[–] MiltownClowns@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

jurisdiction and extradition. theyre too busy suppressing voting and melting their elderly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Look where it's hosted? Sorry, but this approach has been outdated for decades. Laws apply when you address the users inside that legislation. No matter where you are, where your server is, etc.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 73 points 2 months ago

As someone neither living nor hosting my instance in Texas I'll basically ignore it, and if it came to it I'd block the entirety of Texas if they somehow convince courts to enforce this outside of Texas.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 71 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Lemmy isn’t social media. Ignoring that though, the law actually says:

According to the Texas Office of the Attorney General, this new law will primarily “apply to digital services that provide an online platform for social interaction between users that: (1) allow users to create a public or semi-public profile to use the service, and (2) allow users to create or post content that can be viewed by other users of the service. This includes digital services such as message boards, chat rooms, video channels, or a main feed that presents users content created and posted by other users.”

Which literally applies to every single site on the entire planet that has a comment section. This law is incredibly unenforceable.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 42 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Lemmy is absolutely social media.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nuh uh! I'm a Sovereign Netizen and I'm not driving social engagement, I'm just a traveler on the information superhighway!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yep. This is another dumbass politicians trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that doesn't work.

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

It's not about solving a problem, it's about exerting control.

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 months ago (19 children)

Lemmy isn’t social media.

What in the heck is it then?

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 64 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

The answer? Block Texas

Not joking. If suddenly hundreds or thousands of sites would become unavailable. It wouldn't last a week

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

doesnt that happen every time it rains in texas?

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That didn't work with porn, so it's not a good idea for less popular websites.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why would anyone mess with texas at this point?

[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

Cause it's funny

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 49 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The same way lemmy works with GPDR. Lemmy completely ignores it.

[–] FarFarAway@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (19 children)

That's the vibe I'm getting. No problem.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

It doesn't exactly ignore it, but in a sense GDPR doesn't apply to Lemmy.

Long story short, GDPR is made to protect private information, and EVERYTHING in Lemmy is public so there is no private information to protect. It's similar to things like pastebin or even public feed in Facebook, companies cannot be penalized for people willingly exposing their information publicly, but private information that is made public is a problem.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago

I'm so glad I don't live in that shithole state.

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 46 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This has "DMCA notice to a Russian music site" vibes. Basically, we do nothing. They have absolutely zero authority outside of Texas. If the instance is inside Texas's borders, that's a different story, but if the instance is located outside, it has no obligation to follow Texas's law. They can't do anything. They can't block Lemmy, because it's federated. They can't sue Lemmy, because it's federated. They have zero recourse, except for slam their feet on the ground and cry like a petulant child.

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I'm curious to why can't they do anything to Lemmy because it's federated.

Can they just block all the domain names of lemmy through ISP?

As for suing, can they just go after the server owners or the hosting service?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paf0@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago

So much freedom that it hurts.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm tired of Texas trying to expand their sphere of influence beyond their borders with shitty laws and shitty judges.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If you don't operate in Texas, do you have you comply? Is the easy fix is don't have your servers be in Texas?

[–] FarFarAway@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Someone can correct me if im wrong, but, pretty sure its any social media. Similar to what happened with pornhub.

According to the Texas Office of the Attorney General, this new law will primarily “apply to digital services that provide an online platform for social interaction between users that: (1) allow users to create a public or semi-public profile to use the service, and (2) allow users to create or post content that can be viewed by other users of the service. This includes digital services such as message boards, chat rooms, video channels, or a main feed that presents users content created and posted by other users.”

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I mean my question was addressing the scope of the jurisdiction Texas can have over a server in another state. It feels like the onus is on them (or the ISPs in Texas) to block that server

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ulkesh@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

It’s called the “Fuck Texas” response to such a garbage law. And good luck enforcing it especially with federated sites.

[–] toasteecup@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

Set up a redirect for all Texas IP addresses. Point to Fuck Texas.

lol it doesn’t

Texass is gonna have to play whack-a-mole and do it the hard way. And I’m pretty sure the more technically inclined members of the fediverse are going to have loads of fun fucking with whatever IT measures they try to mitigate this with, because they’re certainly not going to be drawing the best and brightest minds.

Put another way: weaponized non-neurotypicals are gonna have some fun fucking with a state government that doesnt like them, because the feeling is very much mutual.

[–] mynamesnotrick@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 months ago

Texas: "I'm gonna let you finish but I'm just going to keep regressing right now."

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

I'm fine with Texas disappearing from the internet. Literally every site with a comment section now has to comply or just block Texas. One of those seems more feasible.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Texas is slowly turning into Afghanistan

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Enjoying freedumb in Texas, I bet. One of the least-free states in the country.

[–] FarFarAway@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Its getting more dystopian by the week. I would say day, but a lot of brains don't move that fast here.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

If I ran an instance and if I knew how to do it, I'd just prevent it from working in Texas like all the porn sites are doing.

load more comments (3 replies)

welp no more lemmy for texas i guess, lmao

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Comply?

"Is there some way it just doesn't need to" = "Is there some scenario in which Texas laws don't apply worldwide?"

Yes. There is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›