• ColdWater@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    So USA slowly becoming China now? What’s next VPN users will face jail time?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Too many American corporations rely on VPNs for that to happen. The last thing politicians want is to piss off their corporate masters.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        They mostly use self-hosted VPNs, not your regular, everyday VPN like Mullvad or Proton VPN. So they’re not going to ban the tech, but maybe they’ll try to ban the public services.

        I already host my own, so they’ll have no power over me. Even if they successfully prevent me from making a VPN, I have other options (SOCKS proxies, SSH tunnels, etc).

    • GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Fuck that. My VPN keeps my information safe. It’s a basic goddamn right. There ain’t no way they are taking it without me knowing about it and saying it’s ok. It may not be the best way, but it’s an easy effective way to stop most people trying to scam information.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can’t hide forever and eventually you’ll be cornered and will have to fight back. It’s always better to have the initiative in choosing the field of battle. If you hide until you are cornered, it’s your enemy who has that initiative.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        VPNs don’t keep anything safe, they just make you appear as if you’re in a different location. Your information is secured by TLS, and that works with or without a VPN.

        What VPNs do accomplish is improve your privacy. Since you appear like you’re from somewhere else, and you can easily change where that somewhere else is, it’s much harder to track you across sites.

        I don’t see how it helps with scams though. Most scams come from data breaches, and they care far more about the data you provide to that service (credit card info, login creds, etc) than where you connect from. It’s more helpful to prevent tracking from the likes of Google and Meta.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well that’s because identify theft is based on WHERE you live. So VPNs mitigate that information. I am not saying it will stop all, but it helps. And it’s my choice. Not some corporations.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            No, you can’t steal someone’s identity with their IP, that’s not how that works, and a regular attacker can’t figure out your IP anyway, unless you visit a website they control. And that info is pretty useless.

            Identity theft happens with a breach of some service you trust. So maybe a bank will expose your SSN (or equivalent in whatever country you live in), and they’ll cross-reference that with a breach in a streaming service that has credit card info (includes name, address, etc).

            A VPN won’t protect you from identity theft. Like, at all. That’s not what it’s designed for. What it does is three fold:

            • moves your IP to a different region
            • hides sites you visit from your ISP - make sure you’re using DNS over HTTP as well
            • mixes your traffic with others - mostly makes tracking more difficult

            None of that has anything to do with identity theft. If your VPN claims it does, then that’s stupid marketing and they’re probably hiding other issues they have (e.g. logging policy), and you should probably use a better VPN.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              As someone who has had identity theft happen and hired lawyers to fix it, I’m going to trust those close to the case. My information was definitely compromised. And what won in court? The dumbasses put a location I have never been to. Which was why it was overturned.

              I do hear what you say and agree with the fundamentals of your explanation. But my experience has shown that with even your location it can cost you thousands.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                I don’t use a VPN and had someone try to steal my bank account. When they tried to scam me, they also used an invalid location. They weren’t trying to steal my identity, just my money, so it’s not quite the same thing.

                That said, identity thieves are just as lazy. They usually just buy some compromised credentials on the dark web and go to town opening credit cards and loans and whatnot. They don’t compromise websites you visit to steal your location, it would be much easier to grab that from another breach (just cross-reference one breach with another).

                So I’m standing by what I said, a VPN will do nothing to help here. Identity thieves and scammers don’t coordinate with hackers that compromise websites to steal your IP. If they get far enough that they’re pointing you toward a website they’ve created, a VPN isn’t going to help, they’re going after your login creds.

                So again, get a VPN to hide your traffic from your ISP, limit tracking by advertisers (limited value, they can track through fingerprints), and appear to be in a different area for things like streaming services. But don’t think that a VPN protects you from fraud, that’s BS. Your best options are to freeze your credit, use secure passwords (password managers are great), enable MFA/2FA, and check your credit every so often (once or twice per year is fine).

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe our republicans will develop a strange love for China like they already have with Russia.

  • Eggyhead@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    A side thought: what would the world look like if you needed to be 18+ to make a social media account?

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      I assume practically the same in terms of child safety. Teens will find a way around or a more underground alternative to hang out with each other online.

      To your question: More headaches and invasion of privacy for everyone due to enforcement. How do you enforce it other than state issued ID? It would also exclude a lot of people who either don’t have that ID or don’t have access to it. Then there’s the whole question if whether you want the government to know what media you’re interacting with. For legal reasons the social media company would need to keep evidence on file of your identification, if not report it. Keeping is regardless of whether it’s part of that law, CYA and all.

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Define social media and then imagine a constant argument of semantics where online communities get destroyed and created based on law suites.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    We had these kinds of debates when I myself was a minor (in the late 2000s). I would have thought it would be over by now and people would have realized that allowing teenagers to watch porn isn’t actually very harmful to them at all. Seems not, humanity doesn’t get smarter over time.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      Idk, I think teenagers watching porn is harmful, but preventing them from watching it is more harmful. As a parent, you want your kids to come to you with any questions or problems, and locking down everything breaks every ounce of trust you might have with them.

      My state is doing this crap, so I’m installing a VPN on my wifi to a state w/o these stupid laws so my kids can make their own choices.

    • Dempf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It was already settled long ago by the Supreme Court, but evangelicals are trying to use private action as a way around it, and I bet they’re hoping that one of several current lawsuits makes its way up to our new and corrupt court.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Humanity is smart, those making such laws 1) want the information collected by identifying people, not to forbid porn, 2) just hate autistic people. Because non-autistic teenagers will find something. But then, TBH, autistic ones too.

    • dmalteseknight@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The porn landscape has changed quite a bit since the 2000s:

      • Accessibility: In those days people had the “family computer” which limited the time you could access porn and had to be extra careful as to not get caught. Nowadays you can see porn on a plethora of devices and can basically see porn 24/7.
      • Variety: Nowadays you can find porn for anything and it can get pretty dark. Porn addicts get bored of regular porn and go down a dark rabbit hole. Back in the day you had to make due with what you get or go through a lot of effort to find something you like more.

      Mind you I am not saying that porn should be outright banned but there should be barriers in place. Example porn can only use the domain “xxx” so parents can add the filter to the parenting controls of whatever devices. Sure there are ways to circumvent that but it at least takes more effort.

      • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Lol to the “back in the day porn was safer”. Back innthe day the worst stuff was openly distributed on normal porn sites. It was actually difficult not to stumble over illegal ot really disturbing stuff when browsing those sites. And don’t get me started on the stuff people send you on some irc servers unasked (that was more in the late 90s though).

        Even non porn sites could be bad. Like one time I was browsing a non-porn anime site and suddenly landed on a porn site that had me scared the police might kick in my door, despite closing it immediately after it opened.

        This, luckily, is a lot better regulated nowadays.

        I give you accessibility though. Having a internet connected computer in you pocket 24/7 might make things much worse.

        • dmalteseknight@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I might have worded my comment poorly. I did not mean to insinuate that it was “safer” but that there is more variety. That is, it is easier to find 18th century toaster porn today than back in the 2000s.

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Porn addicts get bored of regular porn and go down a dark rabbit hole.

        This has been disproven over and over. The only people who go to the “darker stuff” are people who are already inclined. They just work themselves up to it by going through the regular stuff.

        It’s the same thing with serial killers, they warm up to it with animals. Which is why someone killing animals is a massive warning sign.

        No, I’m not comparing serial killers to porn addicts. I’m comparing the process of warming up to the extreme stuff by first doing the less extreme stuff.

    • untorquer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Biggest problem is that generic production stuff too often models bad sex, a cartoon version of sex that’s not healthy or pleasurable for anyone, let alone unsafe.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    a survey of 1,000 young people concluded that pornography can normalise sexual violence and harmful attitudes among children.

    That’s irrelevant. This argument assumes that age verification laws will reduce children’s consumption of porn. The war on drugs has shown us that prohibition of this kind of stuff doesn’t reduce anything and only ever makes it worse. All that will happen is children (and adults) will now go to worse/less moderated websites which will on average have more CSAM and other real sexual abuse.

    • sentientity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pretty sure the normalization of sexual violence and harmful attitudes came from the adults in my life. If parents and teachers adequately teach kids to identify those things and know that they are unequivocally wrong, then teens who see unhealthy stuff in porn will notice and be critical of it. Probably indignant, too, since no one is more justice focused than a teen who has just learned something about the world.

      The issue is backward ideas about relationships being reinforced by adults, either through active misogyny or just never talking about it. This argument boils my blood because the porn itself is not the problem. Awful attitudes about relationships and women start very early and they often come directly from parents themselves.

        • sentientity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          I honestly think it’s about degrading the right to free expression. But yes also probably. The people who cast women and kids as pawns in need of protection are usually not super respectful to the real women/kids in their lives.

    • skaffi@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you were a teenager, back when online porn were all pay sites, and so you were using Kazaa/Limewire instead, then you know.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That was never a thing. I grew up in the 90s and I could easily find free porn websites. My main limitation was dial-up internet, not knowing where to find it…

        • Zozano@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I used to leech my neighbours WiFi on my PSP and download stories on the Sex Stories Text Repository because images were too slow.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Sometimes that wasn’t enough and the anticipation of not knowing whether you’ll see a nipple or a dick on the next few lines of the image was preferable.

            I got in the habit of opening multiple tabs while reading a text story, and then finishing up when the tabs finally loaded.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      True. But the people advocating for these laws don’t want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.

      And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality’s complexity doesn’t work for media’s need for sound bites.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think the part about IDs is what’s important. They are not against porn, it’s just a good excuse to account for another part of your activities. Which may be used to classify you or even blackmail you, but I think knowing your preferences is enough. It may allow secret services to predict whom you may like or may not.

        Naturally it will allow to track you.

        There are many factors affecting energy spent on doing something.

        I personally think that this timeline is fucking bullshit and we got there by always choosing the lesser evil, so libertarian (you may make it left-libertarian, I genuinely don’t care about left-right division because it’s mostly traditional and imaginary) revolutions in all the civilized countries are long overdue.

        Not even libertarian, maybe the Empire at War: Forces of Corruption game was onto something. Maybe the left-right and libertarian-statist distinctions are obsolete for our time just like Roman optimates-populares distinction. Maybe we need some new line, formalist-naturalist (as in formal law versus natural law) or something. Where the former part would be existing political mechanisms and the latter part would be saying “no” to fools, thieves and bandits.

  • Kiernian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    For those wondering about the upswing here:

    If the age verification movement goes unchecked, it’s possible that you could be forced to tie your government ID to much of your online activity, Gillmor says. Some civil rights groups fear it could usher in a new era of state and corporate surveillance that would transform our online behaviour.

    “This is the canary in the coalmine, it isn’t just about porn,” says Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights advocacy group. Greer says age verification laws are a thinly veiled ploy to impose censorship across the web. A host of campaigners warn that these measures could be used to limit access not just to pornography, but to art, literature and basic facts about sex education and LGBTQ+ life.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yup, and this is exactly why I plan to use a VPN once my state starts enforcing this law. There’s no way I’m going to show ID to any website unless they absolutely need it. There are very few websites where that’s necessary, so I’ll just use a VPN to a neighboring state (or even to Canada) instead of complying with that nonsense.

      I already have to worry about identity theft, I don’t want to make that even easier…

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        i’ve been toying with the idea of hosting deep web porn front ends. Not sure how legal it would be. But morally, you’d be on pretty good grounds.

        I mean what 13 year old is using tor browser lmao.

      • toynbee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think there’s any website where it is necessary, excluding ones that adhere to unjustified laws.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’ve had to submit it for remote work authorization, travel on a cruise line (not required, but strongly recommended), and to prove my identify for a web host when their automated check failed (that was the fastest way). So yeah, pretty rare, but still a thing.

    • m4xie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not a canary in the coal mine for censoring LGBT information and community, most of the proposed bills outright state that any LGBT related content is covered.

    • Mediocre_Bard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m going to link my ID and look up the most mind blowingly vile, while remaining legal, porn. If they want to talk to me about it, then I am going to make them describe each video before I “remember” what I saw, after which point I will refuse to acknowledge it as porn.

      Sure, it’s dumb, but it’s fun dumb.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Not Americans in the sense I see it. Flag pissing regressives is what they are. A minority that gerrymanders their way into power and pushes their childish backward thinking on the real Americans. Many the rot in their closets from which they only emerge every four years to crash grinder.

      • MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sure that works as well but I myself prefer regressives. It speaks to their mindset that they want to take the country back to some imagined golden age. Where men were men and women were chattel. Where brown folks were not equals and it was okay to attack anyone who wasn’t them without fear of consequences.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not childish. This is just the appearance because people are not afraid of “stupid” politicians as much as they should be.

      In fact all these changes are consistent and all in one direction.

      Information is power, and all these actions create a system where you can’t avoid being identified and visible in everything you do. Then the people in power, if you somehow threaten that power, may assure that you won’t anymore without any open repression, without jailing you or murdering you or even censoring you. You just won’t get anywhere near visibility or power to affect the world, and it will all seem pretty natural and chaotic, so you won’t even see your path being corrected so that you wouldn’t affect politics.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    it’s not a war on porn; it’s a war on lgbtq people and content. the people pushing for these bills have straight up said that.

    • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s a war on both, but especially on LGBTQ people. The fundamentalists are anti-porn in the same way that they are anti-sex in other ways, like opposing sex education.

      But it is absolutely part of their strategy to define anything LGBTQ-related as sexual or pornographic, and therefore to criminalize any public visibility of LGBTQ people.

    • Persen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s a war on any free speech, they don’t like. They could just add more restrictions for certain people.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Exactly. They want to know who is saying what, which is why they’re making these services ask for ID. It’s about control, and “protecting children” is the excuse.

        It’s the same reason they’re trying to ban cryptocurrencies like Monero (private, non-traceable transactions), end-to-end encryption, copyright circumvention tech, etc. They want backdoors to access all the information under the guise of “security,” but really it’s about control.

        Screw all of it. Resist at every turn, and hopefully they’ll violate your rights so you can sue them (with help from groups like the ACLU) and force a policy reversal. That’s the most effective tool we’ve got.

  • JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    How could American politicians be so against pornography, when so many keep getting caught with prostitutes?

    Typical. Rules for thee I guess.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      They pander to the Christian nationalists for their votes. They just want power, they don’t actually hold those values.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because we live in a ravenous corrupt oligarchy barely able to keep the appearance of a functioning democracy.

      • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        They are also against prostitutes. Sex work is work! Criminalizing it only serves to endanger those who are most at risk.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      when so many keep getting caught with prostitutes sex workers?

      FTFY. If you’ve ever worked for a living, you’re a prostitute - just like the rest of us.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s entirely about loyalty and institutionalized stratification. Laws are meant to constrain those outside the party, while those within the party are given a lot of latitude.

  • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Papers please: for millions of Americans, accessing online pornography now requires a government ID

    And I imagine everyone wants a picture of your ID. Which is horrible on so many levels…

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        PornHub is run by a Canadian company, and the guy looking to be our next PM wants to do the same ID thing. So that might be out too, lol

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          PornHub is already unavailable in my state because they refuse to comply (at least last I checked), but it’s totally available in the datacenter in the next state over. :)