this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
96 points (99.0% liked)

Interesting Global News

2635 readers
388 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed lawsuits on Tuesday against the parent companies of Chaturbate and xHamster, claiming that the sites are not complying with the state’s controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/3s70h

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 45 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I can't wait until the list of people that used the verification system gets exposed, and we will be able to see the same politicians on that lists that voted to implement the law.

EDIT: typo.

[–] Wiggle_Hard@hilariouschaos.com 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Manalith@midwest.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Companies should just publish the list as a form of malicious compliance as "proof" that the system works.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] TheAuthor_13@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

*sweats quietly in corner, hoping nobody notices

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Reminder: Ken Paxton should have been in Federal Prison 7 years ago.

[–] JimboDHimbo@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

I was literally pulling up to ask, "ain't this dumb mf supposed to be in prison rn?"

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

This isn't about protecting children. This is about a christofascist theocracy banning porn completely.

[–] xionzui@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don’t really understand how the state can make it the site’s responsibility to restrict access from their citizens. The site is not operating out of or incorporated in Texas. If the state doesn’t want their citizens to access something, it’s their responsibility to ensure that.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think it's like alcohol and tobacco sales. The state doesn't place agents at every store to verify your ID, it's the person selling the restricted goods that's responsible.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The analogy isn't quite right, though.

In this case, you are leaving the state (digitally) and going to a market where the goods are not restricted. The vendor is then packaging them up the same way they always do, and you're bringing them back home with you. You can't even really claim they're "shipping" the goods. YOU provided all the shipping labels and all that, they just dropped it in the mailbox dutifully, like they do everything else.

...then the AG is suing the bodega you bought them from for not checking that you were from a state where it was restricted.

It seems to me if anyone should be getting sued, it's either the ISP or the consumer. Both of which are politically infeasible; the first draws intense net neutrality implications on top of being an imposition among his homies and cronies in the ISPs and the latter would be unenforceable under current technological and legal paradigms.

Long term, we should ABSOLUTELY expect these christofascist lunatics to push us towards our own Great Firewall though. That's definitely the endgame. They want total control over morality backed by the clenched fist of the state.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago

In this case, you are leaving the state (digitally) and going to a market where the goods are not restricted.

I'm by no means an expert, but that sounds more like saying when I walk into the tobacco store I'm leaving the public area (the road and the sidewalk) and entering private property (the store), so the responsibility is on the state to post guards outside the exits to make sure I don't illegally possess tobacco while in public.

Honestly I think the answer is that the state can place the burden on whomever it wants for as long as the court cases take to get resolved.

Long term, we should ABSOLUTELY expect these christofascist lunatics to push us towards our own Great Firewall though. That's definitely the endgame. They want total control over morality backed by the clenched fist of the state.

Feels like that happened already when they turned on the algorithms in 2014.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Right? Among the many ways this is unconstitutional, the damn interstate commerce clause may apply.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

So much freedom, you can't even jack off in Texas with Mr. Paxton knowing

[–] TheAuthor_13@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago

If there ever been a whole face that makes you just want to poke the person it belongs to right in the eye, it’s his.

Low-lying fruit? Yup. But fuck that guy.

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 7 points 8 months ago

These people are too stupid to use a computer and don't want to look after their kids (they're too lazy to monitor them when they're on the computer).

This law is intended to shift blame for bad parenting.

I guarantee these same people are the ones blaming teachers for their dumb kids

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago

This man is determined to show you his face before he masturbates.

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 4 points 8 months ago

What about Reddit?

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Utah's doing the same thing, having demanded (and won) their case to have Pornhub and other sites prohibited from being accessed by adults in our state. Of course we all know that porn is extremely damaging and awful, but it's OK to get addicted to food and religious ideology and other shitty nonsense.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

"Say it makes your weewee turn blue or else! And no censoring right-wing commenters, because internet speech is sacred!!!"

Fuck off, Ken.