“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?

  • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
          ·
          edit-2
          3 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
            3 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.

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

              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

              The businesses that the CCPA refers to do not need to be physically present in California. As long as the business is active in the state and meets the requirements, they are considered to be under the CCPA

              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.