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. bigbuppo · 1790969137 · focus · HN ↗

               It's lawfare against Constitutionally-protected speech. The "for the children" bit is just an appeal to emotion.

               /Same as it ever was

               1. wwweston · 1791044817 · focus · HN ↗

                  As a lifelong student of religious cultures like Utah's (and often in particular Utah's), this isn't bad at a first approximation but could be elaborated better.

                  There is absolutely a class of Utah politicians that has little sincere personal investment in purity culture and associated culture war issues, but knows that they can be used for ingroup/virtue signaling. They also know that the dominant religious culture in Utah prepares the most significant statewide voting block to respond to such culture issues far more powerfully than any kind of attempt to engage on policy or detailed dialogue. This isn't that different from a common general strategy of running on symbolic issues and then devoting your time in office to favor trading/personal gain plus occasional personal pet policy issues, but the particular flavor is regional with a strong religious emphasis.

                  But there's also significant portion of regional religious leadership and membership with sincerely held purity culture beliefs. Some of this is rooted in psychological traits amplified via theology where adherents achieve a perceived state of purity/redemption by cleansing rituals and avoiding contaminants. Some of this is rooted in credences: the tradition makes moral claims about sexual contaminants and you have to sign on to be part of the ingroup (and also the tradition's leaders speak for God and are therefore wrong and if you challenge them you're not just outgroup, you're actually challenging the authority of the tradition which makes you opposed to God himself, so from this perspective there's little legitimate discourse about sexuality topics leaders have spoken about, there's mostly authority of religious leaders and individuals declaring of which side of the spiritual war they're on).

                  So, some people shaped under this culture over time do believe they are fighting crucial battles for the children, to the point where they have no problem with the erosion or even destruction of any secular treaties like those the 1st amendment supports (the fact that Latter-day Saints are quite vulnerable should secular treaties fall in a nation of much larger religious organizations that see LDS as blasphemous heretics is largely lost on most of the porn crusaders, there are some peculiar delusions that come with being a local majority with some national clout yet a national minority nonetheless).

                  And others know this sincere belief is a convenient lever for other power plays, and all you have to do is flatter the prejudices and signals of the ingroup in order to get broad permission for corruption and other antisocial advances.

                  1. freeopinion · 1791122836 · focus · HN ↗

                     It's an interesting aspect of human nature to maintain contradictions in the same brain. Latter-day Saints are taught to value moral agency very highly. But humans in general tend to try to enforce their own practices on others (see Daniel and the Lions Den, also Prohibition).

                     There will always be those who try to leverage people's human frailties into political advantage. Sometimes it's a real challenge to live a principled life. Indeed, it seems rare to meet people who hold to principles even when the principle appears to work against their own self interest in the moment.

                     Obviously, moral agency in the extreme can lead to anarchy. Libertarians must always thread the line of figuring out the minimum amount of regulation that protects society just enough without infringing on the individual too much. If you want a libertarian to vote for your law, you have to convince them that it prevents a serious threat to enough important individuals to matter. You have to tip the scale on the contradiction in their brain.

                     1. trinsic2 · 1791169327 · focus · HN ↗

                        which anarchy are you talking about, the chaos one where everybody out for themselves, or the one with out rulers where there are leaders and people work together out of there own sense of authority?

                        Real anarchy isnt about getting rid of laws, its about getting rid of people that use laws to rule over everyone else.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.