Thread

Court agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN law demands a technical impossibility

802 points · 405 comments · hn_acker

SoftTalker · 1790960547 · focus · HN ↗
> platforms are left with an impossible choice: completely block all VPN traffic nationwide or withdraw access from Utah entirely
Is it even possible to reliably know that a connection is from a VPN? Anyone can proxy through a random hosting provider.
1. happyPersonR · 1790967013 · focus · HN ↗
  Requires the vpn provider to snitch and possible tag the ip frames or http frames lol
  Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless ….
  1. unglaublich · 1790967265 · focus · HN ↗
    It's all just an effort to control the 90%.
    pkilgore · 1790968322 · focus · HN ↗
    It lawfare against porn. They don't want these companies to exist. They want it to be impossible to comply with the law to shut them down.
    pimeys · 1790970267 · focus · HN ↗
    Why are people so upset about porn? It's probably still the biggest portion of internet traffic. Kind of like human nature, don't you think?
    lokar · 1790972853 · focus · HN ↗
    Assuming you are really asking, the two largest objections:
    - religious/cultural. My beliefs forbid this, it makes people bad/worse in some hard-to-define way, so no one should be allowed to do it. Sometimes with an emphasis that the sellers are luring good people into sin/ruin.
    - it harms women. Many of the participants are trafficked or coerced in some way (and further abused). The profits from the industry encourage more of this. It “warps” the mind of men who use it, leading them to mistreat and abuse women.
    I see elements of truth in all these, but IMO they are ultimately not compelling, prohibition is unworkable and unduly infringes on willing participants and consumers.
    UltraSane · 1790976191 · focus · HN ↗
    The "porn harms women" argument really seems to infantilize women and assumes that women can never want or enjoy sex for the sake of sex.
    jonahx · 1790978171 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not the claim. The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    I am all for individual freedoms, but I've read enough about this issue, and seen enough documentaries, that I think the claim is very well-founded. Of course, some porn stars are just willing adults doing something they want to do, but there are many who are not.
    UltraSane · 1790978664 · focus · HN ↗
    > The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    The main point of contention becomes what "enough" constitutes. Almost no women in commercial porn is underage as all countries that legally allow its production also require strict proof of age for the people actually having sex.
    lokar · 1790979288 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ve seen two arguments:
    Women who do not provide fully informed and voluntarily consent are harmed
    Porn makes some (or many, or all) men who consume it treat some (or many, or all) women badly
    reilly3000 · 1790981292 · focus · HN ↗
    Admittedly hot take, but I think the existence of ubiquitous porn on-demand does take away power from people who would withhold sex as part of a negotiation in a relationship.
    serf · 1790981493 · focus · HN ↗
    but you can apply this argument to almost any product or good on the market and get a similar ratio of 'willing participant' and 'pseudo-slavery' involvement. Across the board.
    in other words I wouldn't ban oranges because some of the farmers have been found to have been enslaved; instead i'd investigate and penalize the enslavement and crimes taking place.
    Similarly : I wouldn't ban pornography on some false pretense that it's to save someone, because quite honestly if I began that boulder rolling it shouldn't stop , every industry victimizes someone; it's a question of stopping and penalizing abuses and preventing victimization, not about regulating broad industries ( a move that worsens human rights violations by moving them into a highly lucrative black market, into the shadows ) .
    jonahx · 1790984750 · focus · HN ↗
    I never argued to ban pornography, and I'm not in favor of that.
    That said, no, it's not like other industries. The amount of well-documented abuse is much higher. Degree matters.
    BEEdwards · 1790991884 · focus · HN ↗
    Find chocolate that doesn't involve slave labor at some point in it's production and then say that again.
    Semaphor · 1791030978 · focus · HN ↗
    There is some of the bean to bar variety. Very different price class, though.
    I'd also guess (not know, haven't researched that area at all) that some of the fair trade and similar certified labels you can find even in supermarkets have a good enough control for that.
    autoexec · 1790992279 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd be willing to bet that there are far more people who voluntarily make porn than people who voluntarily work on cocoa farms in Western Africa. Not that the existence of other industries where slavery and abuse are more prevalent make those problems in the porn industry any better, but at the very least a lot of work has been done to limit the amount of abuse in the adult entertainment industry and there are a lot of places where people who are being abused can find help and support, especially here in the US. You're more likely to be supporting slavery and abuse buying a Hershey's Bar or an iphone than by watching a video on pornhub.
    xorcist · 1791022403 · focus · HN ↗
    This is perhaps the clearest example of whataboutism I have ever seen. Sure, the porn industry is nasty, but have you seen the chocolate industry? Let's talk about that instead!
    nsomaru · 1791023571 · focus · HN ↗
    In this case it’s not because this subthread is specifically about comparing abuse levels in other industries and further whether the product should be banned or the abusive practice should be investigated and eliminated.
    swiftcoder · 1791012237 · focus · HN ↗
    > it's not like other industries. The amount of well-documented abuse is much higher. Degree matters.
    It's certainly not that different in degree to the agricultural industry (undocumented workers packed into squalid working conditions, long hours in harsh climate, wage theft, constant threat of ICE...), and we're not out here trying to ban tomatoes
    jonahx · 1791014003 · focus · HN ↗
    You can honestly acknowledge what both industries do without "being out there trying to ban them." In any case, plenty of people want to improve working conditions in the agricultural industry. Probably the best you can do in both cases is imperfect regulation which at least tries to change incentives for the worst kind of abuse.
    swiftcoder · 1791015412 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, but I'm specifically pointing out here the difference in knee-jerk response (particularly in the political arena). Rampant worker abuses in porn leads to attempts to ban it entirely, while similar abuses in the agriculture sector engender a very lukewarm response
    rpdillon · 1791015674 · focus · HN ↗
    How about phone battery manufacturing? Shall we do an accounting of abuses there? Phones warp minds, and have extensive slavery overseas in the supply chain. Societies love to claim the moral high ground by externalizing bad behavior, and importing the result. The US does this extensively with climate and labor laws, and Europe does it with pesticides. The difference with porn is its pretty girls, and its all on camera. I see some parallels with Missing White Woman Syndrome.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
    [deleted] · 1790983601 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    monksy · 1790984896 · focus · HN ↗
    > of the women who end up in porn are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    People who believe that are not aware how the industry has changed and the standards attached to that.
    Additionally, that wasn't the draw of the industry. Using the "porn/stripping" preys on the poor is a far over simplification and a weasly thing to say.
    swiftcoder · 1791012086 · focus · HN ↗
    > People who believe that are not aware how the industry has changed and the standards attached to that.
    This very much depends on where you look at. If you are only consuming Made in California™ porn from the big producers, then yes, a lot may have changed.
    If you are searching out the raw shit from Russia/Eastern Europea/Asia, then no, the industry is still heavy on the abuse and intertwined with organised crime.
    306bobby · 1791015932 · focus · HN ↗
    But that's literally the same with virtually all industries in those regions. Porn isn't some sort of exception
    swiftcoder · 1791045218 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed, but it is treated as an exception in most political discussions
    olyjohn · 1791043232 · focus · HN ↗
    Sounds like call centers. People are trafficked, kidnapped and and forced to work in them, but nobody is trying to ban call centers.
    monksy · 1791180349 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a disingenuous response.
    Having legalized and accessible adult content hurts the scope and desire for "the raw shit". Organized crime created the problem, not the production/consumption of adult content. They're unethical, unlawful, immoral opportunists.
    subscribed · 1790989150 · focus · HN ↗
    All fast fashion comes from the trafficked or abused workers. All meat comes from the grave abuse of the animals.
    It's still sold on the high street and advertised everywhere.
    halfcat · 1791043377 · focus · HN ↗
    Let’s replace a few categories of your argument and see how your logic holds up.
    ”This is not the claim. The claim is that, empirically, many (or enough) of the men who end up in construction jobs are underage, trafficked, or psychologically coerced (due to poverty, drug addiction, abuse, etc) such that the choice is not really the free choice of willing participant.
    I am all for individual freedoms, but I've read enough about this issue, and seen enough documentaries, that I think the claim is very well-founded. Of course, some construction workers are just willing adults doing something they want to do, but there are many who are not.
    You could replace construction with mining or fishing or factory work. It’s pretty clear to me that outlawing fishing jobs isn’t going to solve the problem of forced labor.
    OroPla · 1791057552 · focus · HN ↗
    Never quite understood how that applies to drawn porn or nowadays AI porn.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.