this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
426 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

74702 readers
4200 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 63 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I really wish they'd stop calling it "age verification". It's "identity verification".

[–] tfm@europe.pub 9 points 1 week ago

That would be too obvious

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They're trying to control other people's children. It's evil

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, they're trying to control everyone. This is so they can more easily track absolutely everyone

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They're trying to do both, they're starting with children because they believe that they should have the right to control everyone's children and they're using it as a wedge issue to oppress everyone else. Fascists always start with the people with the fewest rights

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think you get it. If you verify your age you're identifying yourself. They aren't "starting with children." They're only using children as an excuse to identify everyone. It isn't about getting children off of these sites. It's about tracking anybody online.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago
[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 61 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 84 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 36 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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?

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip -5 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 21 points 1 week 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.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Missisippi lawmakers are too idiotic to know what the reducers is and their law enforcement is too busy to learn what a fediverse is to enforce it

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

And that's where you'd be wrong. It's the fediverse's time to shine, really.

[–] sep@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 42 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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."

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 week ago

Don't think the constitution has mattered for a while, mate.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Didn't SCOTUS recently uphold one of these age verification laws?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago

For Porn sites only

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

when will we start calling it the us great firewall?

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 4 points 1 week ago

Because it’s not just the US pushing it.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.net 21 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 🙂

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

PornHub blocked us in Florida.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago

Yeah but that's a porn site, not Discord, Reddit, Instagram, X, etc. A porn site is at least understandable. I mean, people have had to show ID to buy physical porn for years, so it's at least not a new concept. (I would never upload my PII in exchange for porn, but I can at least understand the logic.)

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 13 points 1 week 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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

They can afford the fines?

[–] Kintarian@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’m about ready to cancel my internet and buy a book. Maybe even go outside.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Extreme times, extreme measures...?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

These laws will make Americans seek escape from empire monitoring through VPNs. Empire will coopt the VPNs and then democrats accessing Bluesky without identity verification will be charged with hacking crimes.

[–] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You know the law must be bad if they block Mississippi due to this, but not the UK.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

With the UK, they can block content that's known to be NSFW. With Mississippi, they get fined if kids access the site at all if somebody else on there sees something NSFW.

Jesus christ, that's even worse.

[–] LemUser@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Didn't some woman shoot up Google headquarters because of some age verification process on YouTube where she specifically made makeup videos geared toward children and lost all her revenue or subscribers?