56
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10179 readers
158 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you're asking a question they don't care about, which is the first problem here. the purpose is not to have a legally bulletproof regulation, but to cast doubt on the ability of websites like this to operate in Texas without incurring liability and thereby force them to block users from the state or another such action. this is also how most abortion restrictions work in practice: they muddy the water on what is legal, so risk-averse entities or entities without the revenue to fight back simply avoid doing/facilitating the practice in a given jurisdiction or completely move out of state.
is this dubiously legal? yeah, obviously. but it doesn't matter if you don't have the money to pay a lawyer. and the vast majority of these sorts of websites obviously don't--they'd likely need someone to represent them pro bono, which is not likely.
Very true. That being said there are a lot of progressives in the country as well and some progressive states, or stores/institutions in those states, that would stand up to something like this. And I doubt ISPs would be ok with states trying to ban things like this because it would be very costly and not at all feasible to implement. So hopefully this doesn't really affect online access to healthcare.
Of course then there's the very real possibility that Trump will replicate this kind of enforcement at a federal level. It's scary to think about but also a very real possibility. I feel bad for women in America and what's going to happen to them in the next 4 years.
It's not costly to implement a blacklist.
It very much is. Networks don't work on geographical borders. ISP censorship on a state level would be a nightmare to implement for a specific state without impacting users in a different state. On top of it the government would have to maintain a specific list of IPs they want banned given how easy it is to spin up a new website on a different IP. It's not impossible, but it would be a nightmare to implement.
An ISP is absolutely going to be able to differentiate location based on public IP. They assign blocks of IPs to geographic locations for use with DHCP in that region. You can go to whatsmyip.com and see your geographic location yourself.
There are practical examples of this that you likely experience every day. Steam has geographic restrictions and pricing based on location, streaming services geolock their offerings, etc.
Geo based IP doesn't always apply and it's more in line for a region than say something like a state. Sure there's some overlap, but you're going to also have a lot of misses.