“The SCOPE Act takes effect this Sunday, Sept. 1, and will require everyone to verify their age for social media.”

So how does this work with Lemmy? Is anyone in Texas just banned, is there some sort of third party ID service lined up…for every instance, lol.

But seriously, how does Lemmy (or the fediverse as a whole) comply? Is there some way it just doesn’t need to?

  • kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s the internet - so unless you’re under Texas’ jurisdiction, then it’s likely going to just simply be ignored. Lemmy doesn’t have an interest in making money in Texas or anything, so it’s not like they can go after bank accounts, or otherwise retaliate in any manner other than blocking Lemmy in Texas…so…nothing lost.

  • ricdeh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Why should it affect LW or any other (non-Texan) instance? Any rogue country with populists at the head can implement any arbitrary legislation. That does not affect Lemmy instances hosted in countries with reasonable governments. If Texas wants to enforce their rules (or punish for non-compliance), it is on them to approach instance admins or block the site in their corner of the global internet.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Look where it’s hosted? Sorry, but this approach has been outdated for decades. Laws apply when you address the users inside that legislation. No matter where you are, where your server is, etc.

    • ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can absolutely see Texas looking at it the other way. “Your website can be accessed by our citizens? On you to comply with our laws.” They then spit out a bunch of criminal charges that make things rather inconvenient for some instance hosts. The US reach into international banking systems is uncomfortably long.

      The real problem question is about federation. You can post to an instance from any federated instance. If an account is created in one instance and the user posts to a federated instance are both liable? You have to be able to create accounts AND post to be subject to the law. Can one instance not allow posts but host accounts for participation in other instances to skirt around the law?

    • FarFarAway@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is a fair view. I’m not sure anyone has gotten that far, especially outside the country.

      Heres an article about a similar bill in Utah, that hasn’t gone into effect yet.

      What’s not clear from the Utah bill and others is how the states plan to enforce the new regulations.

      I mean if the general consensus is that it doesn’t apply, then, cool.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is there any Lemmy hosted in the US? Texas can put on a stunt against any US instance, but don’t see them even trying for anything from the rest of the world. Too much work/money with too little chance of success.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    lol it doesn’t

    Texass is gonna have to play whack-a-mole and do it the hard way. And I’m pretty sure the more technically inclined members of the fediverse are going to have loads of fun fucking with whatever IT measures they try to mitigate this with, because they’re certainly not going to be drawing the best and brightest minds.

    Put another way: weaponized non-neurotypicals are gonna have some fun fucking with a state government that doesnt like them, because the feeling is very much mutual.

  • UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The answer? Block Texas

    Not joking. If suddenly hundreds or thousands of sites would become unavailable. It wouldn’t last a week

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s called the “Fuck Texas” response to such a garbage law. And good luck enforcing it especially with federated sites.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m fine with Texas disappearing from the internet. Literally every site with a comment section now has to comply or just block Texas. One of those seems more feasible.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Comply?

    “Is there some way it just doesn’t need to” = “Is there some scenario in which Texas laws don’t apply worldwide?”

    Yes. There is.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Social media is probably a very poorly or very narrowly defined term. Either they called out Facebook, Reddit, Snapchat, etc by name or they gave some broad description of social media that could apply to everything from Facebook all the way down to somebody’s Vbulletin forum and this will be unenforceable for the vast majority of websites. Compliance is likely voluntary for the little fish in social media. I imagine that they aren’t even aware that Lemmy exists.