this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
522 points (96.9% liked)

News

36583 readers
2790 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On Sept. 11, Michigan representatives proposed an internet content ban bill unlike any of the others we've seen: This particularly far-reaching legislation would ban not only many types of online content, but also the ability to legally use any VPN.

The bill, called the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act and advanced by six Republican representatives, would ban a wide variety of adult content online, ranging from ASMR and adult manga to AI content and any depiction of transgender people. It also seeks to ban all use of VPNs, foreign or US-produced.

Main issue I have with this article, and a lot of articles on this topic, is it doesn't address the issue of youth access to porn. I think any semi-intelligent person knows this is a parenting issue, but unfortunately that cat's out of the bag, thanks to the right. "Proliferation of porn" is the '90s crime scare (that never really died) all over again. If a politician or industry expert is speaking against bills like this, their talking points have to include:

  • Privacy-respecting alternatives that promise parents that their precious babies won't be able to access that horrible dangerous porn! (I don't argue that porn can't be dangerous, but this is yet another disingenuous right-wing culture (holy) war)
  • Addressing that vagueness in the bill sets up the government as morality police (it's right there in the title of the bill, FFS), and NOBODY in a "free" country should ever want that.
  • Stop saying it can be bypassed with technology. The VPN ban in this bill is a reaction to talking points like that.
  • Recognize and call out that this has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with a religious minority imposing its will on the rest of the country (plenty of recent examples to pull from here).

Unfortunately this is becoming enough of "A Thing" that the left is going to have to, once again, be seen doing "something" about it. So they have to thread a needle of "protecting kids," while respecting the privacy of their parents who want their kids protected and want to look at porn, and protecting businesses that require secure communications.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 44 points 4 months ago (3 children)

NO VPN!

And the corporate world comes to a screeching halt.

These fuckwads don't even understand anything about what they're trying to legislate.

When shit starts being monitored, I want to see the legislators' traffic public first.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

And the corporate world comes to a screeching halt.

In theory, businesses would be required to register their VPNs and... idk, this would limit access to them somehow?

Much like with the Assault Weapons Ban and the assorted online porn bans and strip club bans and dry counties and SEC rules on insider trading, etc, etc, etc a lot of this boils down to "how hard do you want to work in order to enforce this?"

And the short answer is "we only want an excuse to arrest people arbitrarily". So a VPN can quickly because a "everyone with an Internet connection is a criminal suspect". And then you just harass the people you want to harass under cover of "we thought you had kiddie porn" as an excuse

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago

I once worked for a banking transaction company (or something like that, I did their network and telecom support, none of the actual business) and they had offices in Russia. I was told that since VPNs are more restricted there, but required for the business, they had to have a special application with the government to be allowed to have the site to site VPN work.

I imagine they'd try to do the same, as well as grant them another way to be in the pocket of or have some control over businesses. If the government has to approve your necessary security software, you'll want to stay on their good side.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It also seeks to ban all use of VPNs, foreign or US-produced.

That doesn't sound like they plan on any exceptions. That sounds like the end of all business in that state.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

When shit starts being monitored, I want to see the legislators' traffic public first.

Oh my sweet summer child. Of course these laws won't apply to them.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And if they do, they will make up shit to use the dirt you dug up against them against you.

Kind of like how when a cop shoots a black guy they look for whatever parking ticket they got 10 years prior as proof he is a cracking smoking cap busting gangsta who was itching for a bullet. Never being slightly concerned for the cop's violent history or misconduct in various police forces.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

Now now I didn't say they were going to allow that.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Corporate VPNs generally don't route www traffic, keeping that separate is kind of the point.

So unless you can convince your job to provide you porn, you're out of luck.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

Corporate VPNs generally don’t route www traffic.

Few corporate VPN's don't route www traffic. split tunnel in a large corporation It's an infoleak waiting to happen.