this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
519 points (97.1% liked)

News

32888 readers
2866 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] waldo_was_here@piefed.social 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago (2 children)

VPNs (virtual private networks) are suites of software often used as workarounds to avoid similar bans that have passed in states like Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as the UK. They can be purchased with subscriptions or downloaded, and are built into some browsers and Wi-Fi routers as well.

I don't think the author understands what a VPN is, or is trying to legitimize the proposed ban... Or maybe both.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

That jumped out at me as well. Like VPNs don’t have a legitimate use outside of shielding your porn traffic! I would argue they’re more often used for secure commercial traffic than for evading porn bans. I’m sure those numbers are rapidly changing, though!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

ban porn

Lol, good luck with hat

ban VPN

Lol, good luck with that too, maybe ban HTTPS while you're at it?

Mind you though, this bill has diddly squat to do with porn. Republicans don't really care about that especially since they're usually too preoccupied with abusing their own children for their sexual needs. Blocking porn is just a cherry on the cake so that they have even more poetry and control

This is mainly about the VPN and encryption. Those are technologies that can be used to pass along true facts, true news, organize protects without them knowing.

You can't really break all types of encryption with one bill, but many aimed at the same goal just might do the trick

I feel that encryption should be enshrined as a human right

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago

It’s the GOP/Christians. It won’t work at first but they’ll come back and make it work once they get the Supreme Court to agree.

It’s happened like this multiple times. This don’t be different.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Could they even ban VPNs? Is that even possible?

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Legally? Easy. Pass the law, boom. Done. They see encrypted traffic from your house/phone? That's a paddling.

Technically? Well, sort of. A lot of VPN uses TLS for the encryption between their servers and the clients, so from the outside it could very well look like regular encrypted HTTPS traffic. So, depending on how such hypothetical (I hope) law is worded, it could just make all encryption illegal. It would not prevent anyone from using it, because that's just math. You can't prevent people from doing math with a computer. But you can certainly prosecute them if the law says so.

Of course, a more complete answer is that it is possible to masquerade as something else, depending on your available bandwidth and your will to side step the (hypothetical) law. If your traffic looks legitimate (and seems to be in plaintext), but you embedded some hidden meaning that the recipient can decipher, then you're playing cat and mouse, and you can get away with thing. Wrapping DNS queries inside TLS made it easy to avoid DNS spoofing at ISP level, for example. But the point remain; such law are not made to make something technically impossible. They're made to make something prosecutable. After all, there are laws against murder, but they don't prevent murder, they merely incentivize people to not do it.

edit: I ignored the whole lot of other issue with banning encrypted communication as a whole, because it would break every business that have an online presence, including banking and trading. But, exemptions are a thing. Law for thee, not for me, this kinda move.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And if they don’t make encryption illegal, I guess there’s no way to stop it?

I think encryption illegal is insane since so many people use it for everything (banking, other things). But it sounds like what they want is for you to not be able to spoof your location. Not sure how that would be possible to prevent or monitor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Anticorruption of Public Morals Act"

Fucking 1920s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 19 points 3 days ago (3 children)

yup. businesses, military installations, federal government offices. all need to relocate out of michigan. don't even matter if it passes should assume it might come back up. Safer to get out and stay out.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›