“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?

  • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you don’t operate in Texas, do you have you comply? Is the easy fix is don’t have your servers be in Texas?

    • FarFarAway@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Someone can correct me if im wrong, but, pretty sure its any social media. Similar to what happened with pornhub.

      According to the Texas Office of the Attorney General, this new law will primarily “apply to digital services that provide an online platform for social interaction between users that: (1) allow users to create a public or semi-public profile to use the service, and (2) allow users to create or post content that can be viewed by other users of the service. This includes digital services such as message boards, chat rooms, video channels, or a main feed that presents users content created and posted by other users.”

      • sorghum@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 months ago

        I mean my question was addressing the scope of the jurisdiction Texas can have over a server in another state. It feels like the onus is on them (or the ISPs in Texas) to block that server

        • FarFarAway@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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

          First, it prohibits digital service providers from entering into an agreement with a known minor unless they have verifiable parental consent.

          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.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            “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.

            • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.

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

                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.

                • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  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.

                  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    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.

      • Lost_My_Mind@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fuck 'em. They want to do this, let Facebook, and Reddit, and Instagram, and TikTok and the fediverse, and any others that I’m forgetting refuse to serve connections to Texas.

        Make Texas the ONE PLACE where the internet is just yahoo and thehampsterdance.com

        And then when Texans go elsewhere, they realize all they did was punish themselves. The rest of the world moves on without them.

    • naonintendois@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      If you own an instance it’s better to check with a lawyer. They might give you a warning first or they might go after you immediately. How effective that is depends on what country you live in and which country the server is in.