• Skavau@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Also, a detail but:

    https://www.pcmag.com/news/supreme-court-lets-mississippi-age-verification-law-go-into-effect-for

    It’s considered likely to be unconstitutional.

    The ruling now allows Mississippi to enforce its social media law while case continues in the lower court. In the ruling, Kavanaugh also cited several district court rulings opposing similar age-verification laws, concluding that “the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional.”

  • unalivejoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Its probably more difficult to block multiple mastodon instances than the single bluesky site.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      The problem isn’t that the state is blocking it; its that they threatened to impose a $10,000 fine for each user who can access the site without first proving their age.

      You can afford that risk if you live outside the US. Not if you’re a US corporation

      • unalivejoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        17 hours ago

        If a minor hosted their own instance for friends, would the state fine them $10,000/pop?

        • sep@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I assume the hoster would know the age of his friends? Or is the law more spesific in how the verification must happen.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Something I do wonder about these laws: could a person self-hosting a private fedi instance that only they have an account on, argue that they meet age verification requirements by virtue of personally knowing the age of the only user? Or at that point would the whole network of federated servers count as the “platform” rather than the instance?

            • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              14 hours ago

              this doesn’t kill the fediverse. mississippi can’t do shit to you if you aren’t in mississippi unless the state you’re in agrees to cooperate with them. and that’s only after they subpoena your hosting provider, which might not even cooperate with them at all if they are outside US jurisdiction. and if you go through cloudflare? that’s another subpeona from a corporation that doesn’t like revealing information about their users and has gone to federal court on many occasions to fight both state and federal governments.

              any state that doesn’t have one of these laws on the books is unlikely to decide to extradite you for something that isn’t illegal where you live, especially since it’s not a criminal charge.

  • Skavau@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    16 hours ago

    So I’m curious. If this law is in play in Mississippi now, are Mississippians being prompted for their ID on Discord, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit etc? I would check myself but my VPN doesn’t have a Mississippi server.

    If not, and they’re not bothering, then why is Bluesky reacting like this specifically?

    • percent@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I kinda wish the big companies would do the same and just block the states that pass these laws. Like, the state just loses access to a big chunk of the internet as soon as the bill passes, prompting an uproar and a learning opportunity for those lawmakers.

      Obviously that’s probably unrealistic, but I can dream 🙂

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Bluesky likely doesn’t want to deal with the hassle and the percentage of users from the state that use it is so minimal they just don’t view it as worthwhile.

      • Skavau@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I suppose it’s more me being curious about why the bigger-boys aren’t using age-ID there.

        • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          14 hours ago

          the “bigger-boys”, as you put it, are currently fighting it together on appeal in a lawsuit. once the appeal is finished, it will probably head to the supreme court, where Kavanaugh has said it will likely be found unconstitutional.

  • The Velour Fog @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Does this law apply to all social media/social media-type sites, or only social media websites under the umbrella of the NetChoice group?

    The articles on this are all frustratingly vague. Bluesky is not under NetChoice so I assume all social media sites will eventually be blocking MS IPs?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      17 hours ago

      My understanding is that it applies to every site which hosts any NSFW content, whether or not minors can access it