Utah Targeting VPN Users Trying to Avoid Invasive Online Identification "Age Verification", Bu-Bye USMB


"The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire."

Again, calling for violence against people.

Do your research instead of listening to what you're told. Most of the arrests are for people advocating violence against people. Some aren't, but I doubt any of them got put in prison for it.
86 47 mean anything to you?
 
Actually, I was in the process of getting lots of examples but you ended up proving my point all on your own. Good job.

There are certain elements of society that believe "offensive" speech IS advocating violence. They're able to twist the facts and skew the truth in such a manner as to suggest that regular speech is "dangerous." That's the point I'm attempting to make (to no avail).
This is where the problem comes from. You can take a room full of people, and tell them all the same thing. Some will ignore it, Some will think it's just talk. But sometimes one person in the room thinks its some kind of call to action.
And the speech is judged on what it provoked, and not what it actually said.

Even the "reasonable person" test fails, if you aren't addressing reasonable people.
 
This is where the problem comes from. You can take a room full of people, and tell them all the same thing. Some will ignore it, Some will think it's just talk. But sometimes one person in the room thinks its some kind of call to action.
And the speech is judged on what it provoked, and not what it actually said.

Even the "reasonable person" test fails, if you aren't addressing reasonable people.
Good post. I don't believe opinions and perspectives should be controlled by whomever is in power on a particular day. Unless and until an actual crime is committed, speech should be left alone. Even speech we disagree with.

I've never cared for Alex Jones. I did listen to him back in the 90s and I think he had some good things to say. He awakened me to the "Bohemian Grove" elites and some other rarely discussed facts but he could also be a total lunatic at times. I don't agree with his assessment of Sandy Hook but I believe he had the right to speak his mind on the subject. The moment he got severely punished for speaking his mind, the door was opened for ALL of us to be punished for speaking ours.

That's a dangerous or precarious place to be here in America -- a Constitutional Republic. Once the 1st Amendment crumbles, the rest is soon to collapse along with it.
 
Good post. I don't believe opinions and perspectives should be controlled by whomever is in power on a particular day. Unless and until an actual crime is committed, speech should be left alone. Even speech we disagree with.

I've never cared for Alex Jones. I did listen to him back in the 90s and I think he had some good things to say. He awakened me to the "Bohemian Grove" elites and some other rarely discussed facts but he could also be a total lunatic at times. I don't agree with his assessment of Sandy Hook but I believe he had the right to speak his mind on the subject. The moment he got severely punished for speaking his mind, the door was opened for ALL of us to be punished for speaking ours.

That's a dangerous or precarious place to be here in America -- a Constitutional Republic. Once the 1st Amendment crumbles, the rest is soon to collapse along with it.

Free speech is something that should be based on "intent" and not on the actual language, because of both the inexactness English can have, like the same word, meaning opposite things, or having several possible meanings.

You have the danger that seemingly innocent words can be the trigger to a violent act. Just as often as violent words can be ignored completely. So the standard by which words are judged rings of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
 
Who got arrested? Any examples?


"The recent arrest at London’s Heathrow airport of a noted Irish comedian, Graham Linehan, for the “crime” of three politically incorrect tweets vividly illustrates how far Britain has fallen."


"The first post, from his X feed, said: "If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.""

This is his first post where he's advocating VIOLENCE against people for doing something that is legal. Whether you agree with it being legal or not is neither here nor there. Advocating violence against someone will GET YOU ARRESTED.

The Forbes article calls them "politically incorrect". It's not "politically incorrect", it's promoting violence against people.

"A few months ago, police arrested a couple for messages shared in a WhatsApp chat group as six officers searched their home. Authorities arrested a grandmother for silently holding a sign outside an abortion clinic that said “Coercion is a crime, here to talk, if you want.”"


"All of the charges against her have now been dropped."

"She was standing within 200 meters of the hospital, which is a “safe access zone” under Scotland’s abortion law."

This is a Scottish law that says 200 meters around a hospital is a safe zone for people. You have the right to protest, but you certainly don't have the right to protest everywhere. Same in the US. You can't protest in US military bases, in the Capitol Building (unless of course you're calling for the overthrow of the Biden government) and in people's private homes or land, loads of places. Do people protest hospitals? Probably not because on hospital grounds it's usually private land.

"Woe to those who are deemed guilty. The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post. In contrast, a child molester was sentenced to 21 months in the slammer."


"The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire."

Again, calling for violence against people.

Do your research instead of listening to what you're told. Most of the arrests are for people advocating violence against people. Some aren't, but I doubt any of them got put in prison for it.
If advocating violence got you arrested we would have NO TDS posters here
 
Actually, I was in the process of getting lots of examples but you ended up proving my point all on your own. Good job.

There are certain elements of society that believe "offensive" speech IS advocating violence. They're able to twist the facts and skew the truth in such a manner as to suggest that regular speech is "dangerous." That's the point I'm attempting to make (to no avail).

Well, if you think that's the point you're making, I didn't see it.

I'm going to give you an example. Rwanda in the 1990s. People's speech ended up in a genocide where one group attacked another group.

You think that is speech that should be protected?

I don't. And the UK doesn't. And many countries don't.

You should not have the right to go and tell others to kill other people, especially when it's a different group. Because people will then start doing it.
 
86 47 mean anything to you?
Ah yes, all these people saying that advocating violence is "freedom of speech" and then cheering on Trump as he tries to take down someone who posted a picture of two numbers that potentially means advocating violence.

Funny how when it's your side doing things, it's fine, when it's the other side doing the same thing, it needs to be stamped out.
 
Free speech is something that should be based on "intent" and not on the actual language, because of both the inexactness English can have, like the same word, meaning opposite things, or having several possible meanings.

You have the danger that seemingly innocent words can be the trigger to a violent act. Just as often as violent words can be ignored completely. So the standard by which words are judged rings of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Well, if you think that's the point you're making, I didn't see it.

I'm going to give you an example. Rwanda in the 1990s. People's speech ended up in a genocide where one group attacked another group.

You think that is speech that should be protected?

I don't. And the UK doesn't. And many countries don't.

You should not have the right to go and tell others to kill other people, especially when it's a different group. Because people will then start doing it.
It depends on what was spoken. If one group spoke the truth and the other group attacked them for it I wouldn't blame the speech but the response to the speech.

Example: If I say "mutilating children's genitalia is a sick crime" and a transgender person punches me in the face for saying it -- he should be punished for reacting to it incorrectly. I shouldn't be punished for saying it.
 
It depends on what was spoken. If one group spoke the truth and the other group attacked them for it I wouldn't blame the speech but the response to the speech.

Example: If I say "mutilating children's genitalia is a sick crime" and a transgender person punches me in the face for saying it -- he should be punished for reacting to it incorrectly. I shouldn't be punished for saying it.
We're talking about people saying "go hit these people" or "go firebomb the hotel where these people are living".

We're not talking about "speaking the truth".

Your example isn't what we're talking about.
 
sure......we'll all have a group laugh when the gub'mit installs microchips in our gourds....~S~
 
Everyone should be very clear on exactly what this means. Everyone here will be doxxed in a government database linked to every comment or post you ever made. You will no longer ever really be anonymous. If you ever said anything critical of Israel, Trump, the DNC, anything, a quick AI search will come up with everything you ever said. I'm guessing forums like this will die because most people don't want to share their opinions that much. The no holds barred exercise in free speech and debate was fun while it lasted.




"For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes a clunky age-verification mandate, and, without fail, Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage surges as residents scramble to maintain their privacy and anonymity. We've seen this everywhere—from states like Florida, Missouri, Texas, and Utah, to countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Indonesia.

Instead of realizing that mass surveillance and age gates aren't exactly crowd favorites, Utah lawmakers have decided that VPNs themselves are the real issue.

Next week, on May 6, 2026, Utah will become, to EFF’s knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. While advocates in states like Wisconsin successfully forced the removal of similar provisions due to constitutional and technical concerns, Utah is proceeding with a mandate that threatens to significantly undermine digital privacy rights. "

-------



Flash: The Sudden Push for New “Child Safety,” Age-Verification Laws for Internet Has Nothing to do With Child Safety. It is Surveillance and Control.​


The first step to understanding the sudden rush toward Internet “age verification” is to discard the notion that it has anything to do with child safety. The politicians pushing it are the same ones remaining silent on the lack of prosecutions after release of the Epstein files.



A moment’s thought would tell us that there is nothing these laws would do to “protect children” that the use of “parental control” settings on devices would not.

A simpler solution is to take away smartphones from young children altogether, and to block social media and harmful sites from devices, using the broad array of effective tools made for this purpose.

Some call it good parenting. There is no way to remove 100% of the risk of childhood. When you give your teenager the car keys for the first time, a part of you is terrified. But that is part of life.



But instead of recommending common sense measures, Big Tech is determined to create a problem by pushing smartphones and computers into the hands of children of all ages, i.e., a “car,” with the solution being to demand that anyone who turns the key has what in essence is a digital ID, linked to a high-resolution facial scan, to prove you are “old enough.” “Old enough” are the words of Bill Gates, a leading proponent of “age verification.”

Such a clever ruse betrays how much elites think about this, and how much they want it. Why?



“Age verification,” “child safety” laws are nothing more than the government’s latest attempt to build out an all-encompassing, total surveillance and social control system of the kind now being perfected in China.



The familiar “Are you a robot?” spot-checks used by many websites, which consist of checking a box to confirm “no I am not a robot,” will turn into spot facial scans, and presenting your digital ID QR code, so that all comments you make or actions you perform on the Internet, even searches, are now part of your permanent record.

Perhaps to be analyzed by AI or law enforcement at some point in the future, in the pursuit of “thought-crimes” like ”spreading misinformation,” as defined by the government of course.



The US government has shown that it has no qualms about abusing any power to collect US citizens’ personal communications. Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the NSA, after enactment of the Patriot Act, had been sweeping up the communications of millions of Americans, with no probable cause or warrants.

The Jacobin said of the episode in 2023 that the NSA:

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribed

The Jacobin reported that the FBI had used the NSA database to look for information on Black Lives Matter protesters. According to the Times of Israel, Snowden also revealed that the NSA had shared millions of raw data files on Americans with Mossad, the Israeli secret service.



Using such a system, expanded to every corner of society, the Chinese Communist Party has eliminated all dissent and serious criticism of the government and its policies.



All ordinary Chinese are assigned a unique digital identity number at age 16, which is linked to a facial recognition scan, and all financial, medical, and other personal information.

CNET wrote in 2020:




In the name of “protecting the children,” politicians say it is now necessary to verify age. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that in order to verify age, they must know exactly who you are, through the upload of official ID documents, linked to a biometric facial scan, which puts you into a system which, coincidentally, can follow you around, know who you are seeing, what you are saying on the Internet, whether you have taken the latest injections touted as “vaccinations,” whether you own a firearm, and for “other purposes.”

The breathtakingly vague language “for other purposes” is the precise language used in the most recent federal “age verification” bill, the outlandishly named Parents Decide Act H.R. 8250, sponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer [D-NJ-5], Rep. Elise Stefanik [R-NY-21], and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick [R-PA-1.]



Most importantly, the facial scan, digital ID system presumably for the “protection of children” will have teeth. The political and banking elites make no secret of their desire for a purely digital currency financial system, devoid of cash, which could allow or disallow purchases in real-time.

Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest and most powerful investment company, and now also the president of the World Economic Forum, has described, in glowing terms, the coming “tokenizaton” of all assets from houses to currency, into one global ledger, linked to all individuals by a digital ID.

Former Bush Sr. administration official Catherine Austin Fitts says the system will be like “the company store,” where there is only one place to spend the money that you earn and all transactions are on the store’s terms.


Anyone “spreading misinformation,” as determined by the government, could be punished by shutting off their ability to buy or sell. Age verification will require the creation of a de facto digital ID, which would eventually link to all bank accounts and determine the ability to access them. Cash would be non-existent.

The eagerness of governments to weaponize the financial system as a tool to force compliance with arbitrary, executive branch mandates and rules has been clearly shown. During the Canadian trucker’s protest against COVID vaccine mandates, which millions of pages of newly released documents indicate were far more harmful than health agencies were telling the public, truckers and their supporters were having their bank accounts and credit cards frozen by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in retaliation for opposing the mandate.

In January, 2026, outspoken UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter revealed on Judge Napolitano’s show that he had been “de-banked,” and had his primary 26 year bank account with Citizens Bank suddenly terminated without explanation. Ritter is a harsh critic of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, and regularly accuses these governments of war crimes. Ritter says he believes pressure from the federal government played a role.

December 13, 2025, mass protests in UK against China-style digital ID.


Former Fox News reporter Clayton Morris on “age verification” Trojan horse




China is the Model

The model for handling citizens which Western elites make no secret of wanting to emulate is China, where one’s digital account can be debited, with no due process, for any infraction specified by the government, or suspended completely. In 2023 Bill Gates praised China’s admittedly “authoritarian” COVID response. Klaus Schwab, founder of the powerful World Economic Forum, praised China for imposing harsh “COVID control measures” on citizens.

This is why governments and bankers have been pushing for what is called “central bank digital currency (CBDC,)” a scheme in which all cash is abolished, and the government determines who can spend how much money, on what, and when. If it is determined that your greenhouse gas “carbon footprint” is excessively high, for example, your gas purchases can be instantly rolled back. Likewise, if your facial scan profile has been spotted at a protest, whether a J6 or “No Kings,” expect a knock on your door within hours.

If a journalist, or anyone, has spoken out against government corruption, he suddenly might not be able to shop for food, if the accusations have been deemed “misinformation.”

Even some central bankers who are more concerned with the future of their country than their own power, such as Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, have warned that a CBDC would allow the federal government to:

monitor every one of your transactions. I get why China would be interested. Why would the American people be for that?”



The Chinese System Works




Investment Watchblog reports in May 2023:


According to China Undercover, in China new legions of homeless are being created of people who did not toe the government line, and have had their ability to rent,buy or sell shut off.

Banned, Broke, and Homeless: The Human Cost of China’s Social Credit System




The Chinese system works, and Chinese politicians and government officials face very little criticism of themselves or their policies.

Even in the middle of massive corruption, in which massive numbers of people are barely subsisting or starving, there are no protests or social unrest.

CNET describes how all speech in China, literally what you can say and not say, is ruthlessly controlled.



CNET writes:


“No allowed space” to say bad or mean things about me, behind my back and in private, even if they are true. What else could be a politician’s most dearly held dream since time immemorial?

“Any package, pallet or container can now be equipped with a sensor, transmitter or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that allows a company to track where it is as it moves through the supply chain—how it is performing, how it is being used, and so on….In the near future, similar monitoring systems will also be applied to the movement and tracking of people.” - Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution



Below: BBC reporter tests China surveillance system







104 Replies · 1.43K Reposts · 2.35K Likes

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VrDS!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/e6496d95-3000-4d8c-a455-ae2db74e88fc_1023x567.png

Well. That was long. I stopped trying to read any of junkle’s OP after that hideous first paragraph.

I’m just curious if junkle could possibly be any more of an alarmist?
 
Everyone should be very clear on exactly what this means. Everyone here will be doxxed in a government database linked to every comment or post you ever made. You will no longer ever really be anonymous. If you ever said anything critical of Israel, Trump, the DNC, anything, a quick AI search will come up with everything you ever said. I'm guessing forums like this will die because most people don't want to share their opinions that much. The no holds barred exercise in free speech and debate was fun while it lasted.




"For the last couple of years, we’ve watched the same predictable cycle play out across the globe: a state (or country) passes a clunky age-verification mandate, and, without fail, Virtual Private Network (VPN) usage surges as residents scramble to maintain their privacy and anonymity. We've seen this everywhere—from states like Florida, Missouri, Texas, and Utah, to countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Indonesia.

Instead of realizing that mass surveillance and age gates aren't exactly crowd favorites, Utah lawmakers have decided that VPNs themselves are the real issue.

Next week, on May 6, 2026, Utah will become, to EFF’s knowledge, the first state in the nation to target the use of VPNs to avoid legally mandated age-verification gates. While advocates in states like Wisconsin successfully forced the removal of similar provisions due to constitutional and technical concerns, Utah is proceeding with a mandate that threatens to significantly undermine digital privacy rights. "

-------



Flash: The Sudden Push for New “Child Safety,” Age-Verification Laws for Internet Has Nothing to do With Child Safety. It is Surveillance and Control.​


The first step to understanding the sudden rush toward Internet “age verification” is to discard the notion that it has anything to do with child safety. The politicians pushing it are the same ones remaining silent on the lack of prosecutions after release of the Epstein files.



A moment’s thought would tell us that there is nothing these laws would do to “protect children” that the use of “parental control” settings on devices would not.

A simpler solution is to take away smartphones from young children altogether, and to block social media and harmful sites from devices, using the broad array of effective tools made for this purpose.

Some call it good parenting. There is no way to remove 100% of the risk of childhood. When you give your teenager the car keys for the first time, a part of you is terrified. But that is part of life.



But instead of recommending common sense measures, Big Tech is determined to create a problem by pushing smartphones and computers into the hands of children of all ages, i.e., a “car,” with the solution being to demand that anyone who turns the key has what in essence is a digital ID, linked to a high-resolution facial scan, to prove you are “old enough.” “Old enough” are the words of Bill Gates, a leading proponent of “age verification.”

Such a clever ruse betrays how much elites think about this, and how much they want it. Why?



“Age verification,” “child safety” laws are nothing more than the government’s latest attempt to build out an all-encompassing, total surveillance and social control system of the kind now being perfected in China.



The familiar “Are you a robot?” spot-checks used by many websites, which consist of checking a box to confirm “no I am not a robot,” will turn into spot facial scans, and presenting your digital ID QR code, so that all comments you make or actions you perform on the Internet, even searches, are now part of your permanent record.

Perhaps to be analyzed by AI or law enforcement at some point in the future, in the pursuit of “thought-crimes” like ”spreading misinformation,” as defined by the government of course.



The US government has shown that it has no qualms about abusing any power to collect US citizens’ personal communications. Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed that the NSA, after enactment of the Patriot Act, had been sweeping up the communications of millions of Americans, with no probable cause or warrants.

The Jacobin said of the episode in 2023 that the NSA:

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribed

The Jacobin reported that the FBI had used the NSA database to look for information on Black Lives Matter protesters. According to the Times of Israel, Snowden also revealed that the NSA had shared millions of raw data files on Americans with Mossad, the Israeli secret service.



Using such a system, expanded to every corner of society, the Chinese Communist Party has eliminated all dissent and serious criticism of the government and its policies.



All ordinary Chinese are assigned a unique digital identity number at age 16, which is linked to a facial recognition scan, and all financial, medical, and other personal information.

CNET wrote in 2020:




In the name of “protecting the children,” politicians say it is now necessary to verify age. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that in order to verify age, they must know exactly who you are, through the upload of official ID documents, linked to a biometric facial scan, which puts you into a system which, coincidentally, can follow you around, know who you are seeing, what you are saying on the Internet, whether you have taken the latest injections touted as “vaccinations,” whether you own a firearm, and for “other purposes.”

The breathtakingly vague language “for other purposes” is the precise language used in the most recent federal “age verification” bill, the outlandishly named Parents Decide Act H.R. 8250, sponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer [D-NJ-5], Rep. Elise Stefanik [R-NY-21], and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick [R-PA-1.]



Most importantly, the facial scan, digital ID system presumably for the “protection of children” will have teeth. The political and banking elites make no secret of their desire for a purely digital currency financial system, devoid of cash, which could allow or disallow purchases in real-time.

Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest and most powerful investment company, and now also the president of the World Economic Forum, has described, in glowing terms, the coming “tokenizaton” of all assets from houses to currency, into one global ledger, linked to all individuals by a digital ID.

Former Bush Sr. administration official Catherine Austin Fitts says the system will be like “the company store,” where there is only one place to spend the money that you earn and all transactions are on the store’s terms.


Anyone “spreading misinformation,” as determined by the government, could be punished by shutting off their ability to buy or sell. Age verification will require the creation of a de facto digital ID, which would eventually link to all bank accounts and determine the ability to access them. Cash would be non-existent.

The eagerness of governments to weaponize the financial system as a tool to force compliance with arbitrary, executive branch mandates and rules has been clearly shown. During the Canadian trucker’s protest against COVID vaccine mandates, which millions of pages of newly released documents indicate were far more harmful than health agencies were telling the public, truckers and their supporters were having their bank accounts and credit cards frozen by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in retaliation for opposing the mandate.

In January, 2026, outspoken UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter revealed on Judge Napolitano’s show that he had been “de-banked,” and had his primary 26 year bank account with Citizens Bank suddenly terminated without explanation. Ritter is a harsh critic of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, and regularly accuses these governments of war crimes. Ritter says he believes pressure from the federal government played a role.

December 13, 2025, mass protests in UK against China-style digital ID.


Former Fox News reporter Clayton Morris on “age verification” Trojan horse




China is the Model

The model for handling citizens which Western elites make no secret of wanting to emulate is China, where one’s digital account can be debited, with no due process, for any infraction specified by the government, or suspended completely. In 2023 Bill Gates praised China’s admittedly “authoritarian” COVID response. Klaus Schwab, founder of the powerful World Economic Forum, praised China for imposing harsh “COVID control measures” on citizens.

This is why governments and bankers have been pushing for what is called “central bank digital currency (CBDC,)” a scheme in which all cash is abolished, and the government determines who can spend how much money, on what, and when. If it is determined that your greenhouse gas “carbon footprint” is excessively high, for example, your gas purchases can be instantly rolled back. Likewise, if your facial scan profile has been spotted at a protest, whether a J6 or “No Kings,” expect a knock on your door within hours.

If a journalist, or anyone, has spoken out against government corruption, he suddenly might not be able to shop for food, if the accusations have been deemed “misinformation.”

Even some central bankers who are more concerned with the future of their country than their own power, such as Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, have warned that a CBDC would allow the federal government to:

monitor every one of your transactions. I get why China would be interested. Why would the American people be for that?”



The Chinese System Works




Investment Watchblog reports in May 2023:


According to China Undercover, in China new legions of homeless are being created of people who did not toe the government line, and have had their ability to rent,buy or sell shut off.

Banned, Broke, and Homeless: The Human Cost of China’s Social Credit System




The Chinese system works, and Chinese politicians and government officials face very little criticism of themselves or their policies.

Even in the middle of massive corruption, in which massive numbers of people are barely subsisting or starving, there are no protests or social unrest.

CNET describes how all speech in China, literally what you can say and not say, is ruthlessly controlled.



CNET writes:


“No allowed space” to say bad or mean things about me, behind my back and in private, even if they are true. What else could be a politician’s most dearly held dream since time immemorial?

“Any package, pallet or container can now be equipped with a sensor, transmitter or radio frequency identification (RFID) tag that allows a company to track where it is as it moves through the supply chain—how it is performing, how it is being used, and so on….In the near future, similar monitoring systems will also be applied to the movement and tracking of people.” - Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution



Below: BBC reporter tests China surveillance system







104 Replies · 1.43K Reposts · 2.35K Likes

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VrDS!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/e6496d95-3000-4d8c-a455-ae2db74e88fc_1023x567.png

The GREAT WALL OF WORDS
 
This is where the problem comes from. You can take a room full of people, and tell them all the same thing. Some will ignore it, Some will think it's just talk. But sometimes one person in the room thinks its some kind of call to action.
And the speech is judged on what it provoked, and not what it actually said.

Even the "reasonable person" test fails, if you aren't addressing reasonable people.
Interesting analysis.
 
iirc, it was the pnac's who wanted control of the internets.....~S~
 
15th post
Utah can try. The whole point of VPNs is that they can't do shit.
Maybe this is a back door way of discouraging data centers in their state. I mean we Virginians have been facing it with porn for a couple years now but there are plenty of sites other than pornhub that don't. As far as I can tell, these laws just encourage more companies to host overseas.
 
Maybe this is a back door way of discouraging data centers in their state. I mean we Virginians have been facing it with porn for a couple years now but there are plenty of sites other than pornhub that don't. As far as I can tell, these laws just encourage more companies to host overseas.
Yea data centers are absolute power/water sinks that are effectively subsidized by the local taxpayer through increased utility costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom