this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
517 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
4464 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

VPNs are not categorically banned in Russia either. Just 95% of them. Categorical ban is not actually required here. Government can just create licensing procedure and license only those VPNs, which follow "rules". I do not see how this is different from ISP bans.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Entirely unconstitutional restriction of speech.

The government can shut down specific illegal acts, such as sharing other people's intellectual property. They can't ban tools or protocols, or do things that are functionally bans. There's plenty of precedent of the government trying to restrict encryption and being shut down. Removing the ability to communicate securely is a first amendment violation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

By the same logic they should not be able to force ISPs to ban sites, but here we are. If they can enforce bans with ISPs, why can't they do the same with VPN providers?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

They may or may not be able to require ISPs to block specific sites. Piracy isn't protected speech. It's going to be a moot point because it's not something that can get actually passed.

They cannot require ISPs to block VPNs. General tools for/access to the internet are protected speech. They could require VPNs that have physical servers in the US to block exits to specific sites (if the first part is valid), but that doesn't do anything when it's trivial to have exit nodes elsewhere and structure your service/corporate structure so the exit nodes are not subject to US jurisdiction.