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

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, things might be tough. So, the American way, just don't do it. Take the money and sit back and watch everything BURN.

You don’t see how this could be a very bad thing? Give government control of what we can say and you’ll lose more than just your freedom of speech

 

[EdwinAMartin]

lol well, with govt. popularity at such all time lows, good luck with rounding up 200 million malcontents and punishing them. Not that Democrats can't wait to do just that, it's just that they're doped up and stupid and will fail miserably at playing Stalinist Tool games. Looting liquor stores and chasing down 17 year olds in riots doesn't really translate well into effective mass arrest skillz. The wannabe Commissars that post here are more than enough proof of that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don’t see how this could be a very bad thing? Give government control of what we can say and you’ll lose more than just your freedom of speech

Of course I can.

And I can how not doing it can also be bad.

 

[yidnar]

Who decides what is "responsible" speech? The government?

ask the Biden admin ..

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

Utah’s New Law Targeting VPNs Goes Into Effect May 6th

Update, May 11, 2026: Utah has agreed to not enforce the VPN law until Sept. 3, 2026 after Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub.com, challenged the law in court.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...

www.eff.org

"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. "

-------

Bill Gates' 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.

publius297744.substack.com

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

Holy wall of words, Batman!

 

[pknopp]

Is this worse than Hitlary obtaining her opponent's FBI files?

It's all bad. How is that not the discussion?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course I can.

And I can how not doing it can also be bad.

Well, not sure where to go with that. You’re talking about the whole country losing all of their rights because there are incidents of bullying that leads to bad results. yes it’s bad, but there’s a line there that can’t be crossed. If we’re trying to prevent unnecessary deaths, there are a lot of other things we’ll have to ban as well.


This isn’t hyperbole either, you give up your speech to the government, a lot of other things will fall as well

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, not sure where to go with that. You’re talking about the whole country losing all of their rights because there are incidents of bullying that leads to bad results. yes it’s bad, but there’s a line there that can’t be crossed. If we’re trying to prevent unnecessary deaths, there are a lot of other things we’ll have to ban as well.


This isn’t hyperbole either, you give up your speech to the government, a lot of other things will fall as well

Well, I am talking about a whole country losing their rights. But only in terms of "if you don't do something about the problem, the US will become a dictatorship without rights".

People have a choice. Either they deal with the problems of almost unlimited free speech, and keep their free speech, or lose it altogether.

The problem here is that the US govt isn't very good. It's not run by the people for the people. Change that, and maybe your rights will be safer.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, I am talking about a whole country losing their rights. But only in terms of "if you don't do something about the problem, the US will become a dictatorship without rights".

People have a choice. Either they deal with the problems of almost unlimited free speech, and keep their free speech, or lose it altogether.

The problem here is that the US govt isn't very good. It's not run by the people for the people. Change that, and maybe your rights will be safer.

You’ve said some offensive things in this thread, I think you should be banned for them….



I mean, that’s where you want to go

 

[frigidweirdo]

You’ve said some offensive things in this thread, I think you should be banned for them….



I mean, that’s where you want to go

I'm not sure you're paying enough attention to understand what I actually want.

Total freedom is Anarchy. Anarchy will lead to people not having freedoms at all.

Life is a balance.

Too much sun, you get cancer. Not enough sun, you get cancer.
Too much water, you drown, not enough water, you die of thirst.

Freedom of speech needs to be a balance.

One thing we know is that with power, you often get the biggest arseholes in charge, because they're the most ruthless, so they'll do anything. Whereas the people who should be in power, won't, so won't get into power.

Power needs to be about people discussing things, about people finding that balance. But people like Trump will come along like a bull in a china shop and shout the loudest and people will listen because it's the loudest.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm not sure you're paying enough attention to understand what I actually want.

Total freedom is Anarchy. Anarchy will lead to people not having freedoms at all.

Life is a balance.

Too much sun, you get cancer. Not enough sun, you get cancer.
Too much water, you drown, not enough water, you die of thirst.

Freedom of speech needs to be a balance.

One thing we know is that with power, you often get the biggest arseholes in charge, because they're the most ruthless, so they'll do anything. Whereas the people who should be in power, won't, so won't get into power.

Power needs to be about people discussing things, about people finding that balance. But people like Trump will come along like a bull in a china shop and shout the loudest and people will listen because it's the loudest.

But we already have limits on speech, we have slander and libel laws, we have defamation laws.

You’re talking about the difference between the government regulation freedom of speech, vs the government telling you what you can say, which is different.

I understand we don’t have true freedom of speech, but when you have a government body deciding what words are offensive and what aren’t, you start down a rabbit hole that I’m not sure people want to go down.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Evidently Europe is thinking about getting on the Big Brother anti VPN mandate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But we already have limits on speech, we have slander and libel laws, we have defamation laws.

You’re talking about the difference between the government regulation freedom of speech, vs the government telling you what you can say, which is different.

I understand we don’t have true freedom of speech, but when you have a government body deciding what words are offensive and what aren’t, you start down a rabbit hole that I’m not sure people want to go down.

And who gets to decide? Oh, the government gets to decide.

If you regulate free speech, isn't that the same as saying what you can and cannot say? In libel they tell you what you can and cannot say. With treason the same.

At no point have I said the government would say what WORDS are offensive or not.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And who gets to decide? Oh, the government gets to decide.

If you regulate free speech, isn't that the same as saying what you can and cannot say? In libel they tell you what you can and cannot say. With treason the same.

I don’t think it is the same. The government puts restrictions on speech that can have a material negative impact on someone, such as defamation, slander, etc. You are suggesting that government have the power to determine what words are considered emotionally offensive, which is very subjective

At no point have I said the government would say what WORDS are offensive or not.

You suggested anti bullying laws, which, the only way you could do that is regulate what language is offensive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don’t think it is the same. The government puts restrictions on speech that can have a material negative impact on someone, such as defamation, slander, etc. You are suggesting that government have the power to determine what words are considered emotionally offensive, which is very subjective



You suggested anti bullying laws, which, the only way you could do that is regulate what language is offensive.

Well, the government has decided what is, and what isn't a restriction. It's also done the same for Treason.

No, I'm not suggesting that certain words are offensive at all. And I ******* told you that in my previous post.

 

[MayorQuimby]

These laws are terrifying enough. The fact that they're passing is even more terrifying. As many have pointed out, this has nothing to do with the children. I have to wonder if there's any way to fight back against this kind of government overreach?

I want to know this, too, and I am not even American. Seriously, if there is an organization out there pushing back against this law, I will give them all the money I have.

End of the day, a good rule of practice is to never say anything on the Internet that you wouldn't be cperectly comfortable saying in a court room.

But what if it's something that's just "offensive" but not illegal? Shouldn't we have the comfort of knowing that we can say it, without physical reprisal?

When folks in Germany or the UK get arrested for voicing their concern over the invasion of their country then something is very wrong.

And nothing would have changed in America regardless of what Jones said about Sandy Hook. Nobody had to agree with him but his statements didn't change a thing. It's not like screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater where a panicked reaction could cause physical harm.

The door has now been opened for anyone in the USA for questioning 9/11 or the JFK assassination or the Iran War or anything else that doesn't align with the "official narrative."

I really think that this is the true and final goal of that law. They are using Utah as the testing ground, and see if they can implement it on a nation-wide scale.

You asked if I had any examples then you provided examples. Thanks for saving me the time and effort.

Are people really being arrested in the UK for social media posts?

Police in the UK continue to arrest people for online posts that are reported as threatening, harassing, or grossly offensive.

redact.dev

Nobody should be arrested for "offensive" speech. King George arrested people for expressing their views and opinions. It "offended" the ol' King and he had people arrested or even worse.

The Founders were offended that King George was a thought cop and did something about it.

I really feel that we should try to awaken Americans to this terrifying law and try to rally them to some sort of political action. Do you have any ideas, sir? I am 100% fully prepared to help out in any way, form, I can, even though I am a foreigner. I can give you my personal email, too. I am 100% serious about this.

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.

Exactly! 100 thumbs up.

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.

Those things aren't simple speeches, they are incitement of violence.

True speech should be OK and incitements aren't. Although yes I agree this opens the door of, "who gets to decide what's incitement".

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.

Is this really true, sir? So does that mean that there is still a way around this draconian law? But wouldn't people still need to use VPN in order to connect to a server that's hosted overseas?

I am all for free speech but you wouldnt stand for porn broadcast to TVs or no age restrictions to go into the movies to watch porn. I get the free speech angle but as a parent I am for age verification. I am not an expert on the details though, admittedly.

It should be up to the parents to make sure their children aren't watching porn online, not the websites.

 

[citygator]

It should be up to the parents to make sure their children aren't watching porn online, not the websites.

It should be up to parents to make sure their children dont buy cigarettes.. not a store. That's insane.

 

[pknopp]

It should be up to parents to make sure their children dont buy cigarettes.. not a store. That's insane.

A store can reasonably guess the age of a consumer. A website can not. An adult has every right to remain anonymous.

 

[22lcidw]

Well, I am talking about a whole country losing their rights. But only in terms of "if you don't do something about the problem, the US will become a dictatorship without rights".

People have a choice. Either they deal with the problems of almost unlimited free speech, and keep their free speech, or lose it altogether.

The problem here is that the US govt isn't very good. It's not run by the people for the people. Change that, and maybe your rights will be safer.

Much of the laws that will make us a dictatorship are in place. It is just enforcing them. Teh criminal codes even before the rise of the powerful central government in recent decades could make criminals of near all of us if followed. much of our products have embedded computer chips that provide information to private and public concerns. Surveillance, tracking, monitoring, hounding and intrusion exists. Free speech is fuzzy. TV turned into a propaganda whore, and we are suffering for it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, the government has decided what is, and what isn't a restriction. It's also done the same for Treason.

No, I'm not suggesting that certain words are offensive at all. And I ******* told you that in my previous post.

Then HOW are you suggesting Congress regulate what is and what isn’t bullying?