“The SCOPE Act takes effect this Sunday, Sept. 1, and will require everyone to verify their age for social media.”

So how does this work with Lemmy? Is anyone in Texas just banned, is there some sort of third party ID service lined up…for every instance, lol.

But seriously, how does Lemmy (or the fediverse as a whole) comply? Is there some way it just doesn’t need to?

  • Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why should it affect LW or any other (non-Texan) instance? Any rogue country with populists at the head can implement any arbitrary legislation. That does not affect Lemmy instances hosted in countries with reasonable governments. If Texas wants to enforce their rules (or punish for non-compliance), it is on them to approach instance admins or block the site in their corner of the global internet.

    • FarFarAway@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is a fair view. I’m not sure anyone has gotten that far, especially outside the country.

      Heres an article about a similar bill in Utah, that hasn’t gone into effect yet.

      What’s not clear from the Utah bill and others is how the states plan to enforce the new regulations.

      I mean if the general consensus is that it doesn’t apply, then, cool.

      • protist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        84
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I live in Texas, and can confidently tell you the people writing these laws have no fundamental concept of what the internet is or how to implement or enforce such a law for consistent adherence.

        I can also tell you with confidence this law will be wielded with impunity against specific companies/sites our corrupt, petulant AG decides to go after. Fuck Ken Paxton.

        As far as users in Texas, this is nothing a VPN can’t fix.

          • Zedd @lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            3 months ago

            Absolutely. Most “travel routers” have openvpn installed on them. I have one router set up with my normal internet, and another with a full time vpn’d connection. The VPN router was like $60.

            They’re also great to have when traveling. It connects to whatever random wifi, and all of your devices show up as a single device. You turn off the VPN to connect to your hotel’s capture portal, then turn it back on and all of your devices have secure internet.

            • GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Is there a particular VPN router that you suggest?

              Also, is there a subscription fee or something for the VPN usage?

              Thank you so much for the info!

              • Zedd @lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’m using the gl.Inet 1200 off Amazon.

                There is a monthly fee for your VPN account. I use nordvpn, but there are a ton of options depending on how much you want to pay and what you need.

    • ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can absolutely see Texas looking at it the other way. “Your website can be accessed by our citizens? On you to comply with our laws.” They then spit out a bunch of criminal charges that make things rather inconvenient for some instance hosts. The US reach into international banking systems is uncomfortably long.

      The real problem question is about federation. You can post to an instance from any federated instance. If an account is created in one instance and the user posts to a federated instance are both liable? You have to be able to create accounts AND post to be subject to the law. Can one instance not allow posts but host accounts for participation in other instances to skirt around the law?

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That would require jurisdiction to charge them anyways. They do not have such power.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Interstate commerce is not under the jurisdiction of any state, it’s under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They’d need a federal bill passed.

      • Mac
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        isn’t this exactly what happened with porn sites?

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Look where it’s hosted? Sorry, but this approach has been outdated for decades. Laws apply when you address the users inside that legislation. No matter where you are, where your server is, etc.

      • dan1101@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Do you have examples of that? From what I’ve seen the laws only apply if a business has a physical presence in that state or country.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is there any Lemmy hosted in the US? Texas can put on a stunt against any US instance, but don’t see them even trying for anything from the rest of the world. Too much work/money with too little chance of success.

      • spacecadet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        And the state I’m in would tell them to fuck right off and would probably allow me to counter sue Texas into the ground for harassment. I don’t think Texas wants to mess with states that have massive GDPs and contribute lots of money to the federal government.