this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
1032 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

84569 readers
3844 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 393 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (28 children)

Web services and websites should block all Utah IP addresses and redirect to page explaining that because they cannot tell who's using a VPN, their only option is to block all of Utah.

Yes, I understand how dumb that is, but sometimes you have to fight stupid with stupider.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 162 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Porn sites have been doing that for years now.

And that's exactly what they want.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 90 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They don't want every website to do it though.

[–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 54 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I like the thought, but it won't work. The big websites won't be willing to lose money they don't have to, and like ID laws that give them reasons to extract more data from users anyway.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 45 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Web services and websites should block all Utah IP addresses and redirect to page explaining that because they cannot tell who’s using a VPN, their only option is to block all of Utah.

But VPN users using a VPN outside of Utah will still get through.

What Utah (and likely other dumb states soon) are trying to do is to force age verification worldwide through a state law, forcing websites to verify the age of every user from anywhere, because any user who accesses the site from anywhere in the world might possibly be someone in Utah using a VPN.

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I understand.

Which is why I'm suggesting they preemptively block everyone in Utah. Protesting needs to inconvenience people and good protests redirect that anger towards those in power.

"Utah's new law us makes us legally liable for providing our services to residence in Utah using a VPN. As that is not technically possible, we have no choice but to cease operating in Utah, or allowing Utah residents to use our services."

But whether or not that particular strategy would be an effective from a protest, is a moot point, as big tech is behind these types of age verification and use identification laws, and those are the only websites and services with a large enough user base to make a difference here.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 204 points 1 week ago (13 children)
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 215 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think this is one if those laws where they get to selectively choose who to prosecute.

..everyone is always a criminal so those in charge can do whateverthefuck they want with little regard for actual laws.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 65 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think this is one if those laws where they get to selectively choose who to prosecute.

Like every law.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 138 points 1 week ago (5 children)

The EFF warned that the legal risk could push sites to either ban all known VPN IPs or mandate age verification for every visitor globally.

This is the goal.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Could they not also just selectively ban all Utah-based IPs?

People in Utah could still access with a VPN, but never would, because that would be against the law.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (22 children)

Why is a company or person that doesn’t exist physically in Utah at all responsible for adhering to Utah’s laws? Should be their government’s responsibility to block sites, not the site’s responsibility to block Utah.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] 667@lemmy.radio 48 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Seems like it’s the first step in transferring control of the internet to the government.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] disorderly@lemmy.world 141 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To date, the only countries that have made progress in blocking VPN traffic with some success are authoritarian regimes with ISP-level surveillance.

You know you're on to something when the only playbook you can find was written by the Chinese government.

[–] LuminousLuddite@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The horseshoe theory of mass surveillance

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ohshit604@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Even the Chinese government struggles tracking people using VPN’s, Utah is in for a rude awakening.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 105 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

These aren't "age checks"...it's identity tracking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 99 points 1 week ago (16 children)

Remember when we told people "they'll make it illegal to use a VPN" and we got snarky replies like "it's not enforceable LOL".

The fuck it isn't. Traffic coming from a VPN? That's a paddlin', kiddo.

They're not even trying to masquerade it as… oh, yes, they're still trying to masquerade as a "think of the children!" measure. Those fuckers.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 92 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is like holding a car manufacturer liable when a teenager drives to a liquor store and uses a fake ID.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 1 week ago

Or holding the liquor store liable when a person with a real ID drives to the store in a stolen car

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 84 points 1 week ago

Age verification is a red line. I will not comply

[–] 52fighters@sopuli.xyz 76 points 1 week ago (2 children)

If I were a lawyer arguing against the law in court, my primary argument would be that this violates the interstate commerce section of the US Constitution.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 74 points 1 week ago (6 children)

But spoofing a phone number and harassing me all day isn't worth solutioning. This Gov. is not representing us.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 74 points 1 week ago

The pedophile class has the audacity to dictate access to a utility under the guise of protecting the children

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago (2 children)

More ways to control our lives and track our movements.

"Party of small government".

Personally, I would stop using any site that did this. We all know nothing matters in this country but money. Companies stop making as much, they'll get legislation changed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 70 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Get a list of every dumbass politician who voted this through, and access their campaign websites through a VPN from a computer in Utah. Boom.

Self owned.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 67 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I'm so weary of everything getting a little bit worse every day.

I'm sure we all used to be excited about the future of the internet but now it's just shit.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 62 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Utah flexing those evil Mormon muscles huh? Well get bent Utah and get fucked Mormons.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 60 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It's literally going to be easier for websites to just block all Utah IPs and Geolocations.

[–] moseschrute@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

I’m ok with blocking Utah from the internet. That’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bagsy@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Websites need to block all Utah traffic. If their leaders are going to be shitheads, then no traffic for you until you elect new leaders.

[–] LuminousLuddite@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Traffic coming from Utah? Believe it or not, jail.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] knighthawk0811@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago

they will use this specifically to prosecute whoever they choose and will only enforce it for that reason

[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 55 points 1 week ago

Religion is delusional mass psychosis.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (2 children)

if they are so concerned about children, how about doing something about the mormon church and the fucking horrible crimes that are committed against women and children in it?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago

Ah Utah

The medieval backward heartland of the USA

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 week ago (21 children)

Wait… this is specifically about websites?

Easy solution: stick your website behind a CDN. That way, people are using a VPN to contact a CDN, and only the CDN ever connects to your website.

And if Utah thinks two degrees of separation isn’t enough… well, it’s likely that every legislator in Utah is two degrees away from someone who will break this law, so they should obviously be the first to be subject to its penalties.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] TyrionBean@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 week ago

This from the people who elected a notorious pedophile, "thinking" that he would find the real pedophiles.

[–] quack@lemmy.zip 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

So how do they plan on figuring out if any given user behind a VPN is in Utah?

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Puddinghelmet@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Russia's VPN crackdown disrupts banks, marketplaces and government services

And so if I'm in Utah as a traveller I can't check my local news by vpn? Ok

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It seems like it's just a matter of time until the US has it's own red firewall.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is what happens when you elect morons to legislate technology they dont understand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have they thought about passing a law that checks to see if the people making the law have an IQ above 50?

This is the dumbest, most waste of time bullshit particularly when the rest of the country is imploding. Maybe they should focus on things that matter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (5 children)

"Designed to prevent bypassing age checks by people who don't understand the technology they are trying to regulate" more at 11.

Legislators should be required to understand technology or consult experts in the field before they enact legislation. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and I'm not even sure it's enforceable.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

Wait a second... how can they enforce this legislation when a VPN is masking the user's location? How do they know a user using a VPN is from Utah?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't the users they're trying to regulate the exact subsection of users that they don't have the ability to identify as being citizens of Utah?

Like if a user appears to be in Utah, then they're probably not using a vpn. And if the user appears to be from out of state, then they could be using a vpn, but also Utah law doesn't apply to those people because they're not from Utah (as far as they know)... So essentially this law can't actually apply to... anyone?

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›