Thread · HN Continuity

I mean, in some cases it seems alright to want to try to prevent VPN usage (in certain scenarios).

Utah is one of a few states that bans gambling. It is logically consistent for them to want to prevent people from using VPNs while in Utah to get around that to do things like access gambling websites, sports books, or prediction markets.

That said, it is fairly difficult (and almost impossible for self-made VPNs/tunnels...). The court was right, but it kind of sucks for Utah in this case. They should have the right in some way to uphold their gambling laws.

Sorry, but if you haven't seen how bad some people and places can be when it comes to that stuff, you probably won't get why.

EDIT: HN is ratelimiting my ability to reply to replies again, for some reason, so my response follows:

Yes, but they have the uncomfortable reality of having to police (I mean in the classical, community way, not an Orwellian way) the results of it -- with resources that are scarecely available, or unavailable. Crime goes up, domestic violence increases, rowdiness and noise complaints go up, fights increase, addiction increases, money problems and lenders get involved....

I never liked social issues being called "public health" issues but in some cases, where things are literally outlawed and more than a certain amount of people with certain predilections take advantage of opportunities to skirt the law more than a few times, it sort of becomes so...

Which usually means less other kinds of freedoms for the rest of the people in that location. Some places I have lived with large online gambling populations have been frankly disturbing.