this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
500 points (96.8% liked)

News

32926 readers
2344 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 41 points 6 days ago (3 children)

NO VPN!

And the corporate world comes to a screeching halt.

These fuckwads don't even understand anything about what they're trying to legislate.

When shit starts being monitored, I want to see the legislators' traffic public first.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Corporate VPNs generally don't route www traffic, keeping that separate is kind of the point.

So unless you can convince your job to provide you porn, you're out of luck.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago

Corporate VPNs generally don’t route www traffic.

Few corporate VPN's don't route www traffic. split tunnel in a large corporation It's an infoleak waiting to happen.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

And the corporate world comes to a screeching halt.

In theory, businesses would be required to register their VPNs and... idk, this would limit access to them somehow?

Much like with the Assault Weapons Ban and the assorted online porn bans and strip club bans and dry counties and SEC rules on insider trading, etc, etc, etc a lot of this boils down to "how hard do you want to work in order to enforce this?"

And the short answer is "we only want an excuse to arrest people arbitrarily". So a VPN can quickly because a "everyone with an Internet connection is a criminal suspect". And then you just harass the people you want to harass under cover of "we thought you had kiddie porn" as an excuse

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

When shit starts being monitored, I want to see the legislators' traffic public first.

Oh my sweet summer child. Of course these laws won't apply to them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 51 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Um, how the actual fuck are businesses supposed to operate where some regressive dumbfucks have outlawed VPNs?

Also, never underestimate the ability of a set of dumbasses doing some damage to this country - for one thing, see the asshole in the WH right now doing all kinds of self-owns to this country.

Secondly, I'm old enough to remember things like the V-chip and the Clipper chip and the government going after Phil Zimmerman. All of these things were rather stupid. And that was during the Clinton administration, which, sure, they were right-leaning as well....were not fucking crazy right wing.

Oh, businesses will get an exception for their company owned hardware, I'm sure. Suck it, pleb!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 37 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Bro can we not?

I thought I got lucky to be born into a family that was able to leave China, and I could browse the internet freely in the US. What the fuck y'all? Just let me have my unlimited access to entertainment in peace mmkay?

So... fucking... cooked...

Blatent First Amendment violation.

I mean what even is gonna be the difference between fucking CCP and this BS.

(Canadaaa plssss lemmme innn? 🥺👉👈❓️
Australia? 👀)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fxleak@lemmings.world 38 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Can we get a list of the names of the representatives supporting this?

Any other identifiable information would be great as well.

Fuck this social contract.

[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 21 points 6 days ago

how about their browsing histories?

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

What, and violate their privacy? Know your place peasant. /s

[–] figjam@midwest.social 35 points 6 days ago (4 children)

All vpns including ones for work? Not a snowballs chance in hell

[–] lando55@lemmy.zip 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What, you got something to hide bro?!

[–] figjam@midwest.social 15 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Sure, lots of spreadsheets with sales data.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 38 points 6 days ago (2 children)

is it doesn’t address the issue of youth access to porn. I think any semi-intelligent person knows this is a parenting issue

There sure are a lot of stupid fucking people then, huh?

Unfortunately this is becoming enough of “A Thing” that the left is going to have to, once again, be seen doing “something”

Personally I think the left should hammer in on "The right are too lazy and incompetent to raise their kids. They want the government to do it for them. No one who's too unwilling or unable to spend time with their kids should be in government" or something like that. Just rub their noses in how stupid, lazy, and incompetent, the right is. Because they are. They are the worst people.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There sure are a lot of stupid fucking people then, huh?

I mean... yeah? Seen any election results in the past few years?

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 6 days ago (3 children)

The fact that Republicans get any votes past the year 2012 is enough to convince me that about 1/3 of Americans are dumber than a box of rocks.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pool_spray_098@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Amen to your point about rubbing their faces in it.

The absolutely stunning level of hypocrisy from the Republicans who claim to be the party of small government has become such a laughing stock. Or at least I would be laughing if they didn't have control of everything right now. Fuck.

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 22 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"If you removed all the porn from the internet you would be left with one website, titled "Bring Back the Porn""

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I just masturbated to these representatives. Legally that makes them pornography, and they are also required to be banned under this bill's provisions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Will it ban their Grindr access though?

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 11 points 6 days ago

Only for non-closeted gays. But for Republicans who only do it to remind themselves of the evils of gay sex it'll be readily accessible.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Corporate media's job is to manufacture consent. Please do not accept their spin uncritically.

This has nothing to do with kids or porn, those are always easy bells for censors to ring. It's about control and tracking. They want to be able to tie anonymous online activity to your real identity.

Politically, we really need to stop accepting their framing that they're trying to protect kids. These bills are only about collecting data.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

"Banning VPNs" has some real " I declare bankruptcy!" vibes.

Why not also ban cash? That can be used to evade detection as well and is notoriously used by criminals.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

they kinda did in australia. If you want to withdraw more than $10K you need proof of what you're going to pay with it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GaryGhost@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The representatives proposing this bill must have some really embarrassing search history.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] plyth@feddit.org 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is a test balloon. One state is needed to overcome all the technical hurdles like clearing VPNs for work. Once that is done it will be roled out everywhere.

Without ruling out VPNs, all the other internet laws don't make sense. So this step is necessary and almost inevitable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (5 children)

It seems quite obvious to me that this will, in fact, not work. I'd even argue that nobody wants it to work. Only to introduce a law that a lot of people will break at some point, to have an excuse to target them later in the future if the need arises.

No project like this will produce any significant results in any western country. It's simply impossible to implement without full supervision and control over the entire Internet. China was able to block all online porn due to having such infrastructure. And that was possible due to a vastly different culture. We don't.

In general, the issue of widespread pornography is very analogous to climate change. We've been warned about this for decades, and yet, have done nothing to prevent it. All we can, and in my opinion should be doing, is limiting its presence in our societies, especially in the context of children. This would no doubt involve online ID verification at some stage, though that can be done with respect towards privacy.

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.

Also, what's up with targetting ASMR? It has no inherent relation to adult content. The transgender people part isn't surprising and we know where that's coming from.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 11 points 6 days ago (4 children)

This would no doubt involve online ID verification at some stage, though that can be done with respect towards privacy.

No it can't. Data can be de-anonymized.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

This would no doubt involve online ID verification at some stage, though that can be done with respect towards privacy.

This is exactly what the UK has attempted. It doesn't work, either.

Porn is here to stay. "Children" covers a wide range of ages, and exposure to sex of some kind is not the debilitating thing it's made out to be. The approach should be to contextualize it and educate about it.

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago

Humans reach sexual maturity as young as like 8 years of age in rare circumstances. Trying to act like humans arnt just fucking animals is bafflingly stupid.

You can't fucking hide humanity from humans. You want to prevent stupid kids from making more kids before they are ready? Or prevent them from easily being taken advantage of sexually?

TEACH THEM WHAT SEX IS, AND BE AS BLANTENT AS POSSIBLE.

The only thing that prevents people from doing something stupid is education and support . The only thing that stops people from letting others take advantage of them is education and support.

If you don't educate your fucked up on bother counts. If you don't support them you fucked up on both counts.

Pussy footing around, using complicated metaphors and flowery language does nothing but confuse children most of the time.

Kids are smart, give them the basic ass facts and they will understand.

Hell even teaching abstinence wouldn't be so God damn fucking problematic if it wasn't so wrapped up in religious bullshit to go along with it.

Just telling your kid what sex is, what porn is, that it's risky and shouldn't be done till they are older. But should it happen use a condom and talk to their parents about it. Would solve so many god damn fucking problems.

FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING PLEASE JUST TALK TO YOUR KIDS AND BE UPFRONT.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] waldo_was_here@piefed.social 24 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 7 points 5 days ago

"Corruption of public morals" is such a shameless name to put on a bill that simply tries to enforce your own morals.

[–] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 18 points 6 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The rule of headlines is that if it asks a question in the title, the answer is assumed to be no.

No, it won't.

[–] MadPsyentist@lemmy.nz 8 points 6 days ago

Betteridges law of headlines

Because if the answer was "yes" then the headline would be writen as a statement of fact. If its a question then the news agency cant be held to account if it is either yes or no because "we are only asking the question."

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Could they even ban VPNs? Is that even possible?

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 18 points 6 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)
[–] Newsteinleo@midwest.social 9 points 6 days ago

The news on this has been underplaying how bad this bill is. It requires ISPs to inspect traffic to ensure its no porn, meaning they would have to be able to decrypt the traffic. This makes a single point were hackers can access credit card data, personal information, and anything else you don't want to share with the world. This assumes the ISPs are willing to front the compute cost of decrypting then re-encrypting and not just banning encrypted traffic because its the easy and cheap way.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago

"Anticorruption of Public Morals Act"

Fucking 1920s

[–] vane@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Don't forget to ban renting servers, vps and cloud services by individuals.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jumbie@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›