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. bozhark · 1790987995 · focus · HN ↗

                  It’s to control their Women

                  Kids are the misdirection

                  1. p-e-w · 1790988529 · focus · HN ↗

                     Please elaborate on how a law that targets websites that overwhelmingly skew towards a male audience is designed to “control their women”.

                     1. autoexec · 1790989764 · focus · HN ↗

                        Charitably, outlawing porn would put a lot of women out of work, and place a new limitation on what types of work they can get, and in the process limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money). It'd do the same for men too, but as you said the audience is primarily men and the content they're looking for is primarily women. The truth is it would suck for pretty much everybody.

                        1. Chris2048 · 1791044619 · focus · HN ↗

                           > limit what women did with their bodies (on camera, for money)

                           like how murder laws limit what women did with their bodies (strangling people to death, with their hands)

                           1. hellojesus · 1791046391 · focus · HN ↗

                              Murder isn't a voluntary trade.

                              1. Chris2048 · 1791136001 · focus · HN ↗

                                 I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;

                                 Anything that is illegal and requires use of your body is a restriction in the use of your body.

                                 Purchasing, selling and muling drugs is a voluntary trade, and also illegal.

                                 1. autoexec · 1791146957 · focus · HN ↗

                                    > Mine was that phrasing this as a limitation on the use of your body is an irrelevant misdirection;

                                    Not in the context of a long and extensive history of efforts to place limitations (often through the use of laws) on what women can do with their own bodies, especially as it pertains to sex. The existence of entirely unrelated acts that have also been outlawed doesn't show that laws prohibiting pornography can't be a continuation of that same tradition of repression and control or that it wouldn't produce the same effect.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.