“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
    97
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        ·
        edit-2
        6 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
            13
            ·
            6 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
              1
              ·
              6 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
                2
                ·
                6 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.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

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

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 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.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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
        ·
        6 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.

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The answer? Block Texas

    Not joking. If suddenly hundreds or thousands of sites would become unavailable. It wouldn’t last a week

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s called the “Fuck Texas” response to such a garbage law. And good luck enforcing it especially with federated sites.

  • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 months ago

    If you don’t operate in Texas, do you have you comply? Is the easy fix is don’t have your servers be in Texas?

    • FarFarAway@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Someone can correct me if im wrong, but, pretty sure its any social media. Similar to what happened with pornhub.

      According to the Texas Office of the Attorney General, this new law will primarily “apply to digital services that provide an online platform for social interaction between users that: (1) allow users to create a public or semi-public profile to use the service, and (2) allow users to create or post content that can be viewed by other users of the service. This includes digital services such as message boards, chat rooms, video channels, or a main feed that presents users content created and posted by other users.”

      • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        6 months ago

        I mean my question was addressing the scope of the jurisdiction Texas can have over a server in another state. It feels like the onus is on them (or the ISPs in Texas) to block that server

        • FarFarAway@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Maybe someone is better equip to answer this question. As far as I understand, it is up to the social media company, as it is operating in the state. Sort of the way the corporate office of a national grocery store can be sued.

          https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-05-BillAnalysis-HB18-Updated.pdf

          First, it prohibits digital service providers from entering into an agreement with a known minor unless they have verifiable parental consent.

          It seems its up to whomever is registering the account. If the person is under 18 they see a scrubbed version, of the person is over 18 they have full access. I’m not sure an ISP has control like that. I could be wrong.

          I know with pornhub, the ISP didn’t block the site, pornhub itself did.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            “Operating in the state” and “accessible in the state” are different.

            Much like a business doesn’t have to have a specific state’s business license to sell to customers of a different state, a website does not have to comply with all laws everywhere just because the laws exist. If they’re operating in Texas, they will. If they’re accessible from Texas, that’s Texas’ problem.

            • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Look at what happened to Binance; not a US website, not technically allowing US customers, still successfully prosecuted by the US government for not doing enough to prevent people in the US from using it.

              • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                That’s because they were facilitating actual, across-the-board federal crimes.

                Not looking at titties.

                I could see states that have such draconian laws working together to attempt to do anything about flagrant violators, but otherwise Texas has yet another pointless, toothless virtue signaling “law” on their hands.

                • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  The difference between what the laws are trying to enforce is a different issue though. The point is a website can be prosecuted just for being accessible when what it offers is against local laws.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 months ago

    lol it doesn’t

    Texass is gonna have to play whack-a-mole and do it the hard way. And I’m pretty sure the more technically inclined members of the fediverse are going to have loads of fun fucking with whatever IT measures they try to mitigate this with, because they’re certainly not going to be drawing the best and brightest minds.

    Put another way: weaponized non-neurotypicals are gonna have some fun fucking with a state government that doesnt like them, because the feeling is very much mutual.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m fine with Texas disappearing from the internet. Literally every site with a comment section now has to comply or just block Texas. One of those seems more feasible.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Comply?

    “Is there some way it just doesn’t need to” = “Is there some scenario in which Texas laws don’t apply worldwide?”

    Yes. There is.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Social media is probably a very poorly or very narrowly defined term. Either they called out Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, etc by name or they gave some broad description of social media that could apply to everything from Facebook all the way down to somebody’s Vbulletin forum and this will be unenforceable for the vast majority of websites. Compliance is likely voluntary for the little fish in social media. I imagine that they aren’t even aware that Lemmy exists.