Thread

1. 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%.

         1. 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.

            1. 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?

               1. 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.

                  1. brookst · 1790987378 · focus · HN ↗

                     Yeah both of those arguments would work fine for banning religion, but oddly that is shocking to proponents.

                     1. Rohansi · 1790989487 · focus · HN ↗

                        I thought the same. People would realistically be thinking "not my religion" but, even if that were true, that is the kind of thinking that leads to conflicts between religions. That can range from racism between individuals, to stuff like this, and even to entire wars. Despite all of this we specifically protect religion, which I'm fine with, but nobody should be forcing their religious beliefs onto others in any way. That has definitely harmed far more people overall.

                        1. germandiago · 1791001493 · focus · HN ↗

                           So in the absence of religion, there is no racism, no interests and no wars?

                           You seem to suggest that banning religion would end up wars or human nature.

                           And yes, noone should force everyone else, but not only om religious stuff. Sometimes there has been non-religious truths to which people are forced and that collides ireemediably with other thinkings.

                           I am not sure why one philosophical thinking should be better than other just bc it does not contain religion.

                           In fact, I consider a big part of most religious a compilation of wise advice about human nature. You can believe it or not, take it or not, that is a choice, but when not taken into fanatism I do not think it is harmful.

                           Again, that is not anreason to force a position to others. But there are a handful of things that are very controversial.

                           1. Dylan16807 · 1791010178 · focus · HN ↗

                              > So in the absence of religion, there is no racism, no interests and no wars?

                              Nah. Between the two comments above there's an implication that in the absence of religion there would be somewhat less of those things.

                              1. germandiago · 1791203233 · focus · HN ↗

                                 As there would be if you worship money or communism or any other belief that is not a religion also for which wars or oppression has been caused.
                           2. 306bobby · 1791016254 · focus · HN ↗

                              Saying something is a major catalyst is not saying it's the only catalyst.

                              Neither parent was being this black and white about it so I have no idea why you are

                              1. hinkley · 1791054168 · focus · HN ↗

                                 I’ll take “Things You Learn In Introduction to Logic” for 500, Alex.

                                 In places where supposedly most of the people are in engineering or software, I’m surprised how often 1) people have to point this out, 2) people are willing to loudly pronounce their lack of basic logical skills.

                           3. antonvs · 1791039363 · focus · HN ↗

                              Religion acts as a mechanism for perpetuating and giving social acceptability to certain kinds of bigotry. If it didn’t exist, it’d be much more difficult to justify that kind of bigotry.

                              1. hinkley · 1791054319 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Institutionalized Othering, literally. This is my in group and we spend every Sunday morning talking about everybody else. Sometimes with extra separate classes for the children.
                              2. fleroviumna · 1791098159 · focus · HN ↗

                                 [dead]

                              3. germandiago · 1791203370 · focus · HN ↗

                                 This is not different from any political power or belief, which shapes mind and action.

                                 In fact, in the absence of religion, the hole is filled with political power.

                                 There is no void. If you leave a void, someone will fill it, after all. Bc there will still be social organization among us.

                     2. numpad0 · 1791018521 · focus · HN ↗

                        The way religion always comes up in these discussion makes me think that, there's a chance that the world sees what happened in the Uighur region of China as a right call, repeating it, not over the next 3-5 years but at 30-50 year history book timescale, just in trivially more humane manners.

                        It's just weird that people could just base decisions on religions and hide behind freedom of thoughts, when there are actions and consequences of what are supposedly thoughts. It only works when the accusing and accused shares the same beliefs, and effectively collude out of a shared interest, which is not just wrong but increasingly becoming not a workable strategy.

                        1. someonebaggy · 1791041182 · focus · HN ↗

                           There's basically no country that hasn't done at least one holocaust in recent history. They happen wayyyyyy more than you'd think. We just don't care about most of them. It's the same reason almost all politicians support Israel - nothing that's happening there is different from anything they want to do or have done in their own countries.

                           1. cindyllm · 1791041897 · focus · HN ↗

                              [dead]

                           2. numpad0 · 1791042466 · focus · HN ↗

                              I don't mean that I think nations will start harassing "foreign" religions, but that someone is going to redefine the concept of religions and draws some line as to what parts of it a civilized nation could tolerate; there are dictator's autobiographies that are legal to possess, read or study all you want, as speeches, but not to follow or to worship. What I'm thinking is that similar thing might happen to religious materials and organizations.
                        2. tarpitt · 1791048483 · focus · HN ↗

                           I don't think it is a good idea to operate a society totally on the basis of reason. Religion exists as a framework for people rationalize their intuitions.

                           That being said, I don't think religion as we know it will be a powerful force in the future, so there will be little reason to persecute the religious. The framework of religion is built to deal with perrenial problems of human nature, and we are in a dynamic time. People may not see religion as adequate for answering modern questions

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.