That's a little bit of a joke. But think about it. Kids don't just find Tiktok hidden among the grass. Their parents give them a phone, give them a computer, a data plan and a wifi password without any parental controls. Then they blame Tiktok when their child commits suicide (possibly had nothing to do with tiktok).

I think maybe have ISPs become the accountable ones. Have them automatically enable parental controls, or emit a second network for kids, and add a waiver to the settings when you go to disable parental controls absolving them of any accountability and placing it on the parents.

[–] billbasher@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

I really don’t want ISPs policing internet traffic more than they already do. I think you’re right though. Router level second network filtering that blocks VPNs. Block the kids MAC addresses from the primary. This needs to be on parents.

That same kid could go to a nudy video store and steal something. They could get into all sorts of 18+ physical stuff.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 16 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Just go away with age verification. You are breaking the internet with this non sense. Eg. Providing passports will only cause exploits and leaks, with all its consequences.

If you want to protect your children, then maybe the parents should protect them.

[–] DieserTypMatthias@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

And good luck resetting your ID.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 5 hours ago

I want to respawn on planet earth again from scratch.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You are breaking the internet with this non sense.

I think that's their goal. Conservative types benefit when people have limited access to information

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 10 hours ago

It's all about power indeed.

[–] Joker@piefed.social 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The internet has been broken for at least a couple decades. The Fediverse is about the closest thing to the old internet.

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 10 hours ago

Agreed!

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 41 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

This is bullshit. It should be on mississippi to block the sites or require local isps to block them. The providers are on the internet and not going out to be in mississippi. Places should wall themselves off if they can't handle the internet.

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 40 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

Or - hear me out here - it shouldn't be on anybody to do anything because the law itself is garbage and should not exist.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 9 points 21 hours ago

It should fall on the parents and ISPs should have an opt in option to block adult websites.

But we all know this is more about control and data harvesting than anything else.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

But the question is, what would be a reasonable legal principle for preventing such laws generally? Mississippi is going to pass bullshit laws, but it shouldn't be possible for the jurisdiction of any state to be anything on the entire internet.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Or what about fireworks. They're not legal in all states, but you can travel to another state and buy them with an ID from a state where they are illegal. Airguns are considered real firearms in NJ and require a permit, but you can drive to PA and buy them, they don't need to make sure that they're legal in your state.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it's against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there's always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).

Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn't the thing that matters, it's whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yea that's my point. Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there's nothing legally they can do. But rule of law doesn't seem to doing so hot these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal gov stepped in pressure companies into complying.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there’s nothing legally they can do.

Is that really how it works? Haven't legal challenges to these sorts of laws already been appealed up to the supreme court and they were upheld?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 22 hours ago

yup but at least then they would be leading the charge for people to leave their state.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Psssshhhh!!!!! Get outta here with that solid logic, and critical thinking! We don't use reasoning in this country! We just cry and scream until everybody ELSE caves to the demands!

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You're right. Imagine having to put more resources into Mississippi than Mississippi puts into anything.

How would other countries have responded if instead of building The Great Firewall, China had demanded each international company not allow Chinese citizens within China to access certain parts of their websites?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 9 points 20 hours ago

Yeah what you have at the end is sorta my thought line. You want to go all censorship at least get off your ass and do it yourself.

[–] klu9@piefed.social 30 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Malicious compliance:

"Are you too old to have flown on the Lolita Express with Epstein and Trump?"
"Are you young enough to be employed as a 'towel girl' at the Mar a Lago massage parlour?"

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 17 hours ago

Has Mississippi lower the age restriction to 14 years old?

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 49 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Have any of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord implemented age-checks in Mississippi then?

If not, why is Bluesky the only one going dark there?

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Because Bluesky isn't a real decentralized platform

[–] Skavau@piefed.social 14 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah but why aren't the other sites implementing checks?

[–] thejoker954@lemmy.world 15 points 23 hours ago

Money.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

They will

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago

There are other Appviews on the atProto that have chosen not to implement checks that have full access to Bluesky posting/data.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 2 points 16 hours ago

🤝🙂‍↕️

Decentralized

BitchSky

嘘！

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 22 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Bluesky is a small indie company. It can't afford to fight the law or implement the extensive age verification the law requires. So it chose to pull the plug and leave.

FB, X, etc, have a lot more resources to implement the extensive, invasive age verification Mississippi requires and keep fighting it in court until the decision upholding it is final.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I'm of the opinion that even if it is final, at some points laws are so ridiculous they must cease to be effective for all.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 7 points 23 hours ago

Lol .... US law is becoming less and less relevant or meaningful as time goes on

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

and keep fighting it in court

> implying those neofash sites would fight against orders to tHiNk Of thE cHiLdReN

[–] Vittelius@feddit.org 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They will if tHiNkInG oF the ChiLdReN threatens to meaningfully affect their bottom line

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 7 hours ago

Why would it affect their bottom line other than positively? Corporations love fascism because it can make it mandatory for people to buy from them, among other things.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I don't understand. Does an instance hosted anywhere outside of this US backwater state have anything to fear from this? Why is Eugen being contacted all the way in Germany?

[–] rimu@piefed.social 5 points 20 hours ago

They're primarily in Germany but there is some US presence too. From the join Mastodon site:

Mastodon, Inc. (EIN 92-3333630) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity in the United States that supports the growth and operational capabilities of Mastodon, including being able to receive tax-deductible U.S. donations and in-kind support.

Oops