“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 upfor 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?

  • RichardEnglish
    arrow-up
    148
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

    • FarFarAwayOP
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • protistEnglish
        arrow-up
        84
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        2 months ago
        edit-2
        2 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

        • GlendatheGayWitch
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          2 months ago
          link
          fedilink

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

          • Zedd English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            2 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            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.

            • GlendatheGayWitch
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              2 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Is there a particular VPN router that you suggest?

              Also, is there a subscription fee or something for the VPN usage?

              Thank you so much for the info!

              • Zedd English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                0
                ·
                2 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                I’m using the gl.Inet 1200 off Amazon.

                There is a monthly fee for your VPN account. I use nordvpn, but there are a ton of options depending on how much you want to pay and what you need.

            • Resonosity
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              2 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              That’s an amazing idea. I had no clue this was a thing. I would imagine openvpn is free?

    • ninjaEnglish
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      2 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago
        link
        fedilink

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

        • MiltownClowns
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          2 months ago
          link
          fedilink

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

      • aesthelete
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        2 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Interstate commerce is not under the jurisdiction of any state, it’s under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They’d need a federal bill passed.

      • Mac
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        2 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        isn’t this exactly what happened with porn sites?

    • NeoNachtwaechter
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • dan1101
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Do you have examples of that? From what I’ve seen the laws only apply if a business has a physical presence in that state or country.

        • Grenfur
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Pornhub is an example of exactly this. They’ve blocked whole stares like Arkansas and Utah over these kinds of laws. I highly doubt pornhub has a physical presence in Arkansas of all places.

          • ozymandias117English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            And like the top level comment stated, it’s on Brazil to block Twitter in their corner of the internet. That’s why their 20,000 ISPs are scrambling to block it - not Twitter

    • AA5B
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Is there any Lemmy hosted in the US? Texas can put on a stunt against any US instance, but don’t see them even trying for anything from the rest of the world. Too much work/money with too little chance of success.

      • spacecadet
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        2 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        And the state I’m in would tell them to fuck right off and would probably allow me to counter sue Texas into the ground for harassment. I don’t think Texas wants to mess with states that have massive GDPs and contribute lots of money to the federal government.