this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025

84 points (98.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3485 readers

420 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes/pics of text

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

exposingfash@midwest.social

Wisconsin wants to force all adult sites to block VPNs – here's what we know (www.techradar.com)

submitted 1 month ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/usa@midwest.social

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The bill has now landed in the Senate for consideration

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This seems entirely unenforceable. All an adult site has to do is say "We're not doing business in Wisconsin" and block Wisconsin IP addresses. Then if someone from Wisconsin accesses their content via a VPN, well, literally the point of doing that is that your traffic no longer appears to be coming from Wisconsin. So how would they know?

The only workable version, as the article suggests, is to basically ban VPN operators from selling to people in Wisconsin. But even then, with a little technical know how, or a good guide, someone can rent a $5 VPS and set up their own Wireguard tunnel to route all their traffic through it and boom, now they're a customer from Germany. So are they going to ban VPS as well? This isn't a solvable problem and never will be.

[+] baronvonj@lemmy.world -15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

So how would they know?

Because they do a whois on the IP and see it's owned by a VPN provider or a VPS provider and then they block it.

[–] sickday@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How would they know the person using that VPN or VPS is from Wisconsin? That's the only place this all applies to.

[+] baronvonj@lemmy.world -12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They wouldn't, but they would know the person is hiding their true location and state back to the user as such. Some web sites will go to that level and some won't.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But then Wisconsin would be obligating every website in the world to block every VPN in the world. I'm pretty sure you can see how that's not legally enforceable.

[–] ghostlychonk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

It's not about the VPNs, it's about controlling the lives of the citizens. I guarantee there's language in their lumping in sites that offer merely information about LGBTQ+ topics.

[+] baronvonj@lemmy.world -13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But then Wisconsin would be obligating every website in the world to block every VPN in the world.

No, just adult ones.

I'm pretty sure you can see how that's not legally enforceable.

Like I said, some sites will go to this level (as in they already do) and some won't. It just depends how popular and visible the site is and how likely they feel they are to be targeted by an over-zealous attorney general, and if the potential fine is larger than the lost revenue or not. And it doesn't even have to mean revenue loss. They could just say "you're connecting from a VPN so you have to provide your ID regardless" so that they're compliant.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, Wisconsin literally can not do this, it’s not physically or legally possible. It’s a funny idea though.

They could try to ban every website which would require ISP’s to block the websites on the list… but again, all you would need is a VPN… and if they outlaw VPN, another user posted the solution.

Unless they create a Wisconsin firewall there is literally nothing they can do to pass the rules they are talking about here. All a user would have to do is maybe click three extra buttons to just ignore this law and remain untraceable for the most part

[+] baronvonj@lemmy.world -6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, Wisconsin literally can not do this, it’s not physically or

I'm not saying Wisconsin will legislate that all sites do it (although they can actually pass whatever stupid rules they want as long as they can convince judges not to strike them down as unconstitutional). I'm saying larger commercial sites (think Fansly and OnlyFans and sites like that, not free tube sites) can, and already do, detect if you're connecting from a VPN provider or cloud provider and then ask you for ID if you do regardless of its geographic location, in order to ensure they are compliant with all these state ID laws. Because they have too much revenue at stake to risk an AG like Ken Paxton coming after them over it.

All a user would have to do is maybe click three extra buttons to just ignore this law and remain untraceable for the most part

Are you under the impression that web sites can't detect when you're connecting from a VPN? Here's a site that provides information like all of Proton VPN's server IPs around the world.

https://www.netify.ai/resources/vpns/proton-vpn

Here's how to find Amazon Web Services public IP ranges

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/aws-ip-ranges.html

It is 100% technically possible for web sites to detect that you're connecting through a VPN or from a cloud service provider network and respond accordingly.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

No, I’m saying there are enough methods of so easily breaking through any of these protocols the legislators are even talking about that the idea itself is farcicle.

With sites like onlyfans we are already talking about pay models.

There are whole forums of websites that just download specific onlyfans accounts, to counterpoint your example.

The internet is more complex than what you are suggesting… the battle against (legal of age) porn and weed has been lost.

Face it, we are all human beings who want to have fun smoke weed and have sexy time I guess…

I will say that I am a little concerned about underage folks being groomed possibly online or taken advantage of… but this is a joke to even consider our government is capable of handling this issue, when they are refusing to release the names of the fucking actual pedophiles they have videos and names from the damn Epstein files… right there in front of their faces. And none have been prosecuted

But they wouldn’t even be groomed on the sites you’ve mentioned as far as I know, nor regular porno sites

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, I’m saying there are enough methods of so easily breaking through any of these protocols the legislators are even talking about that the idea itself is farcicle.

Of course there are, but I was replying to a comment that said basically well we can just VPN out of Wisconsin and so the sites won't know we're from Wisconsin so they won't enforce Wisconsin's laws! And my response was not so fast, there are sites that see you're from a VPN connection and instead say "oh we don't know where you're connecting from so we're going to collect your ID." That's it.

The internet is more complex than what you are suggesting…

I'm not suggesting anything technical about the internet. I'm observing what some companies are doing technically with respect to VPN usage. I have speculated, when asked, as to why these companies may be doing what they are.

the battle against (legal of age) porn and weed has been lost. ...

Agreed.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right on, I was drinking last night and may just have been being a little contrarian or something, I think we are both basically in agreement. Happy Saturday.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

👍

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But only the VPN provider would know if the source is Wisconsin. And only if they're using one VPN. Double up and now no one knows.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right, since the web site doesn't know where you are, they don't know that you are not in a jurisdiction that requires ID, so they play it safe and ask you for ID regardless.

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Many don't "play it safe" in that fashion. It's safer to not know. For them. Because if senators and other congress critters start getting tracked provably, then things can turn sour really quick.

Imagine of grindr required id? Every GOP event would be a lawsuit minefield for then.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Many don't "play it safe" in that fashion.

I know. I was only saying that they can, and some do, so we can't just assume that having access to VPN or VPS will get us around these laws.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If a website geoblocks a state, then that state no longer has any jurisdiction to that website. If the state doesnt want users accessing 'restricted' sites with vpns, they should be imposing their laws on the local isps to block vpns...

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If a website geoblocks a state, then that state no longer has any jurisdiction to that website.

Yes, it would be more likely for a site that is geoblocking to be ok with clients using a VPN.

If the state doesnt want users accessing ‘restricted’ sites with vpns, they should be imposing their laws on the local isps to block vpns…

Sure. But my argument still stands that a site which is not geoblocking such states and has a lot of direct revenue to lose (meaning a commercial site like Fansly which makes all their money by taking a cut of the creators' revenue, using payment processing services like Visa and Mastercard, and is based in the US so they can be sued by multiple states) can detect that you're on a VPN (and by the same method that you're connecting from a cloud service provider like AWS, GCP, Azure, DigitalOcean, etc) and subsequently make you ID yourself just to cover their own liability. They don't have to detect you're in Wisconsin or Texas or wherever, they can just blanket push the ID check on all known VPN and cloud provider IPs and be compliant with all country and states ID laws in one go. That's a much easier technical implementation for them in order to stay compliant everywhere.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

What liability? If they are on a vpn there is no indication where the user originates from. States can sue all they want, but they have no legal standing as they have to prove users from their states are accessing restricted sites. It is utterly ridiculous to uphold a website to a state laws they have no presence in.

All website have to do is geoblock and reject payments from those states. If users bypass those restrictions, thats on the state to figure it out from.within their state.

Or do you think retailers across state borders should stop a customers from buying products that are 'illegal' in their home state?

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What liability?

The liability of some asshat like Ken Paxton suing them over Texas residents being able to access adult content without an ID by going through a VPN, and then Visa/Mastercard pulling out, and killing their revenue. Pornhub didn't really care about all the reported abuse content at first. They only cared when payment processors got involved and then Pornhub deleted all of the content uploaded by non-verified users and required users to be verified before they could upload. Look at what just happened with adult games on Steam and Itch because of pressure from payment processors.

It is utterly ridiculous to uphold a website to a state laws they have no presence in.

Then maybe you can convince Fansly to stop requiring an ID for connections from VPN providers (they are already doing this).

All website have to do is geoblock and reject payments from those states.

Why in the hell would a company that makes their money off of a percentage of the creators' revenue (sites that already have ID requirements and implementation for the content creators to keep the payment processors happy) rather than ad revenue do that? If the creators start losing huge chunks of revenue because either the platform is blocking a third of the country or the payment processors leave, then the site will lose the content that brings the customers to it.

Or do you think retailers across state borders should stop a customers from buying products that are ‘illegal’ in their home state?

No, I don't. And I don't think sites should be complying with these stupid ID laws either. But here we are, and here they are. So what does my opinion even matter?

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I dont get your argument.

Yes websites that want revenue from all states would have to adhere to all states laws...

Whats with the circular logic?

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In response to this initial statement

Then if someone from Wisconsin accesses their content via a VPN, well, literally the point of doing that is that your traffic no longer appears to be coming from Wisconsin. So how would they know?

My argument is that sites don't have to know if you are from a jurisdiction that requires an ID, if they want to take the "leave no chance" approach of instead ensuring you're not from such a jurisdiction. They will know you're on a VPN because they can reverse lookup an IP to see that it is owned by a VPN provider (or VPS provider), and the site can choose to either block you or ask you to age verify based on what they do know instead of what they don't know.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I can make the argument that someone that lives in Wisconsin to drive over state border and access the website in another state... do websites block neighboring states? What if they are on business trip and cross country. Ban that state too? Hell they might be on vacation in germany, better ban germany too.

Your arguement is beyond ridiculous. Once a website geoblocks a region, thats it. States can sue all they want, but they have zero jurisdiction.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Sites are already directing VPN-connected visitors to prove age with an ID. I'm not just hypothesizing, it's already happening. I agree it's ridiculous, but again, they're already doing it.

[–] Bring_Back_Buggy_Whips@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Stupid ignorant tech-illiterates trying to speak tech.

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

So sick of these fascist fucking filth.

[–] pinheadednightmare@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

A lot of restrictions do not matter anymore when you sail the high sea.

[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

I'm sure xHamster will be right on that /s

[–] peteyestee@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What exactly are they even trying to accomplish?

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The worst part about this is the long term consequences of this. Sure you banned porn but now there is massive black market for it where you know women are going to be abused and less protected than today.

Not only than but AI generates porn videos. Sure avg home PC does 5 second video in 5 hrs but what else ppl going to do? there is no porn! They'll scronge through old sears catalog to get off.

Like who's winning with these laws? All I see are losses all-around.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

Ha! I read my sears catalogue for the articles, you perve!

[–] Eh_I@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The space between Minnesota and Michigan wants to ban vpns!