this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
48 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

42975 readers
200 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The terms "blindingly obvious," "logical consequence," and "that is not how it works" appear nowhere in the government handbook of internet legislation. In particular, the discovery that imposing age access controls on websites has pushed users to VPNs has come as a huge surprise to legislators in the UK, the EU, Canada, and Australia. Nobody here knows how old VPN users are, be they kids unwilling to lose access or adults unwilling to disgorge personally identifying data to who knows what.

As they recover from this shocking discovery, these fine people are looking at ways to control VPNs, whether by adding age verification here too or by some magical "digital age of consent" technology that somehow evades the paradox that demanding more personal information in the name of safety itself reduces safety. Yet here, as in so many ways, the rest of the world is lagging behind America – more specifically, the great state of Utah, which has just enacted an anti-VPN law.

This law makes it compulsory for any site that the state says needs age verification – porn, basically – to impose those checks on anyone physically in Utah whether or not they are using any VPN. Those would be the same VPNs whose sole purpose is to prevent the geolocation of their users. Which would seem, and is, another paradox.

I'd not go online without a VPN. There's absolutely no reason my ISP needs my browsing history. And at about $6/month, it's not exactly breaking the bank.

What I'd not use is any VPN provider that sponsors YouTube content. A free VPN has to make their money from somewhere.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Realistically…. How many kids (under 18 in the US) are using vpns for porn? Like this is definitely just another ‘think of the children!’ Deflection to pass horrible spy policy.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 5 points 16 hours ago

I don’t understand. You can just google “porn” and go down the results until a site doesn’t immediately bombard you with an ID verification system. How hard is it? There’s an entire fucking world of servers under varying legislation to check. Meanwhile Utah makes up 0.000000000001% of that structure. Utah is in lala land.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 points 17 hours ago

Eh, I remember kids using proxy sites to get around school internet filters when I was 14. And now that virtually every Youtuber has a VPN sponsorship, I think that 14-18 range of kids definitely has a sizable chunk who knows what a VPN is and what they could use it for...

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

I think in the case of Utah it’s something beyond just wanting to spy on people. I think the LDS(Mormon) church legitimately wants to stamp out porn all together among it’s members. The first step to that is of course, getting a comprehensive list of everyone viewing porn, via ID collection. Then hand that list over to the LDS church, who can name and shame members they find on it.

Now, they probably will not be able do this everywhere, but, in Utah, it is absolutely with in their power given how much power it has over the state government.

🔫 🧑🏼‍🚀

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 day ago

Just need to tell Utah to go fuck themselves. If you don't operate somewhere you don't need to respect their laws. The fuck are they going to do about it? Got no property there for them to take action against.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Get a VPS in Hong Kong. Set up your own point-to-point VPN (OpenVPN, wireguard tunnel) on it. Is the Chinese government spying on you via the VPS stack itself? Sure, probably. But they'll laugh their assess off at a US govt. request to turn over that data.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Why Hong Kong over Iceland or Switzerland?

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 17 hours ago

They may not have (publicly known) info sharing agreements with the US, but they're not adversaries either. China is.

[–] Kichae@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

I've noticed a sudden spike in the number of websites that send me into a Cloudflare spiral whenever I have my VPN active. I think we might see this happening on a lot more sites soon, unfortunately.

[–] clifmo@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

I got an idea for where they can put it

[–] pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.fr 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There's absolutely no reason my ISP needs my browsing history.

Don't know what ISP you have or what VPN you're using, but it's just a transfer of trust. Whoever your VPN provider is, they now see everything your ISP previously saw. I host my own VPN servers when I need one, and even then I still have to trust the datacenter operators to not snoop on my DNS requests (almost everything else tends to be encrypted with SSL/TLS by default nowadays)

Also, the "Private" in VPN is about it being for private use, not about privacy

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

almost everything else tends to be encrypted with SSL/TLS by default nowadays

FYI DNS supports DNS-over-HTTPS. You still need to trust the DNS server, but you can run one yourself at least if you're worried about it.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, I'm using Mullvad. I don't have the hardware to host my own VPN in a van, so this is my best approach. Could I host Wireguard locally? Sure. With access to alternating-current power.

[–] pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.fr 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When I said I host my own, I mean on cheap VPS that cost me way less than 6$/month.

But yeah, mullvad is pretty much the only commercial VPN provider I'd trust more than my ISP

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would counter that I'm saving $1,500 a month by living in a van. As a cost, the VPN is a rounding error.

[–] pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.fr 1 points 1 day ago

My point was never about the cost anyway. It was about VPNs (commercial or hosted on a cheap VPS) still needing you to trust a third party, and also that the P in VPN does not mean "privacy"