Court agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN law demands a technical impossibility
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
Court agrees with EFF: Utah's VPN law demands a technical impossibility
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
SoftTalker · · focus · HN ↗
Is it even possible to reliably know that a connection is from a VPN? Anyone can proxy through a random hosting provider.
happyPersonR · · focus · HN ↗
Folks would just host their own vpns various places and this would be pointless ….
unglaublich · · focus · HN ↗
pkilgore · · focus · HN ↗
pimeys · · focus · HN ↗
lokar · · focus · HN ↗
- 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.
failbuffer · · focus · HN ↗
- natalism. Some people worry about inverted demographic pyramids. They want to see more births, so they need more horny guys trying to form relationships instead of being content single. Sometimes there is a racist angle.
- industry. Anything that's "too fun" for young people disincentives education or working.
- addiction. (But people get addicted to shopping or eating dirt too.)
Some arguments against outlawing it include:
- free speech.
- a sizeable fraction of the population wants it to exist.
- better option for economically impoverished women than prostitution.
- societies that suppress it don't really seem better for women, or anyone.
- prohibition of a widely demanded product creates crime (and nothing is easier to smuggle than pure information).
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
This one seems to have an obvious problem.
It's October, consider the traditional Halloween party for 20-somethings. Slutty costumes, college students making out on the couch, and those are the tame ones.
All of that stuff has been effectively banned from workplaces and official school functions and the like for a while now. Meanwhile people increasingly do their social interaction via social media. So what happens if you ban revealing images and sexual dialog from there too? Where are you leaving for people to actually do those things, if you want them to connect with each other?
theultdev · · focus · HN ↗
It's not a full replacement, but it's enough to keep people content with the status quo.
Telemakhos · · focus · HN ↗
Traditional ways of meeting a spouse don’t involve slutty costumes at once-a-year parties (Halloween is not a spouse-selection fertility festival), but family, church, and neighborhood connections that build over spans of time in 3d. Sometimes HN seems to miss slow, complex, physical-world interactions because of a focus on modeling transaction-like events or instants (like parties).
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
The people who were in college in the 1980s aren't millennials. If you were 22 in 1983 then you were born in 1961. That's not even Gen X, that's a boomer.
And Halloween in particular isn't really the point anyway. The decade associated with topless hippies and free love was before the 1980s. The Romans would dispute the notion that this sort of thing is a recent development.
> Traditional ways of meeting a spouse don’t involve slutty costumes at once-a-year parties (Halloween is not a spouse-selection fertility festival), but family, church, and neighborhood connections that build over spans of time in 3d.
The issue being that the neighbors are no longer renting a hall to have local discussion meetings because that sort of thing now happens on Facebook. And then if Facebook is a place where non-platonic sentiment gets you a ban, what happens?
AnthonyMouse · · focus · HN ↗
The thing about imposing content restrictions via corporate intermediaries is that they're not that selective. If you're not banning cleavage and innuendo from the mass market services then they become the funnel to OnlyFans and escort services, but if you are then the result is a de facto ban on real people flirting with each other because they're afraid of having their account locked.
Consider what "chilling effects" implies in the context of sexual expressiveness.