“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?
Maybe someone is better equip to answer this question. As far as I understand, it is up to the social media company, as it is operating in the state. Sort of the way the corporate office of a national grocery store can be sued.
https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-05-BillAnalysis-HB18-Updated.pdf
It seems its up to whomever is registering the account. If the person is under 18 they see a scrubbed version, of the person is over 18 they have full access. I’m not sure an ISP has control like that. I could be wrong.
I know with pornhub, the ISP didn’t block the site, pornhub itself did.
And from the article you posted at the beginning, perhaps the ISP can’t be required to do that. At least it’s not list as an explicit remedy. Others are suggesting that Texas might block the site from being accessible from within Texas, but there’s nothing in the law itself that suggests Texas would legally do this.
Basically it reads like that they’re restricted to whatever the existing office of the AG of Texas could have already done in terms of enforcement powers, which is largely fines.
Or, like, not allow registration for under 18s at all, I suppose.
No, you are right. The site itself must comply.
Problem is, one would still have to find a way to verify the registrant is over 18.
In the case of a grocery store, they’d have an actual physical presence in the state along with revenue and employees, so I (a total laymen) don’t see how that’s comparable to a website like Lemmy. Even PornHub would be different IMO since they have paid content and the transaction would be happening in Texas. A site like Lemmy earns nothing from its users and doesn’t sell anything so it seems like it’d be quite the stretch to hold them accountable for the actions of some kid on the other side of the country (or planet) since Texas jurisdiction ends at the border of Texas.
“Operating in the state” and “accessible in the state” are different.
Much like a business doesn’t have to have a specific state’s business license to sell to customers of a different state, a website does not have to comply with all laws everywhere just because the laws exist. If they’re operating in Texas, they will. If they’re accessible from Texas, that’s Texas’ problem.
Pretty sure it doesn’t work that way. Look at what happened to Binance; not a US website, not technically allowing US customers, still successfully prosecuted by the US government for not doing enough to prevent people in the US from using it.
That’s because they were facilitating actual, across-the-board federal crimes.
Not looking at titties.
I could see states that have such draconian laws working together to attempt to do anything about flagrant violators, but otherwise Texas has yet another pointless, toothless virtue signaling “law” on their hands.
The difference between what the laws are trying to enforce is a different issue though. The point is a website can be prosecuted just for being accessible when what it offers is against local laws.
No, it cannot. Not a state-based law that the feds don’t care about and other states will tell them to fuck off over.
Not unless they are operating in Texas, accessible to Texas cops, with property seizeable by Texas authorities.
So your claim is that states specifically don’t have this authority, only the federal government? What’s your reason for thinking this?
edit: Here’s an example showing that they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair%2C_Inc.
There’s also laws like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Consumer_Privacy_Act
A number of state based internet regulation laws have recently run into trouble in courts, but that’s because of First Amendment concerns, not questions over whether merely being accessible to state residents gives jurisdiction to enforce them, which afaik it does.