←back to thread

Beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

(dw-news.dreamwidth.org)
295 points AndrewDucker | 4 comments | 27 Aug 25 20:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
andybak ◴[27 Aug 25 21:05 UTC] No.45045278[source]▶
Between this and the UK Online Safety Bill, how are people meant to keep track?

Launch a small website and commit a felony in 7 states and 13 countries.

I wouldn't have known about the Mississippi bill unless I'd read this. How are we have to know?

replies(9): >>45045295 #>>45045350 #>>45045462 #>>45045802 #>>45047760 #>>45047928 #>>45048091 #>>45050064 #>>45054184 #
Hamuko ◴[27 Aug 25 21:23 UTC] No.45045462[source]▶
Check your local laws and make sure never to travel outside your current state.
replies(1): >>45045573 #
bee_rider ◴[27 Aug 25 21:34 UTC] No.45045573[source]▶
States should come together with their neighboring states to start passing identical model legislation for this sort of stuff, if we don’t have unity across the country. It could be easy and voluntary for the states to do.

The US doesn’t have 50 different cultures with totally different values, but probably has like… 7.

replies(3): >>45045657 #>>45045919 #>>45047643 #
gapan ◴[27 Aug 25 22:06 UTC] No.45045919[source]▶
> States should come together with their neighboring states to start passing identical model legislation for this sort of stuff...

Yes! Make a union of states! How should we call that? States Union... Union of States... United States! Yeah, that should work.

replies(4): >>45046317 #>>45046435 #>>45050063 #>>45053761 #
mathiaspoint ◴[27 Aug 25 22:53 UTC] No.45046317[source]▶
The US would make a lot more sense if it split up between two or three different countries. There's a lot of stuff in US politics which people feel strongest about but are absolutely mutually exclusive.

I think it's going to happen one way or another and the most peaceful way to do it would be sooner rather than later.

replies(2): >>45048287 #>>45054206 #
ethbr1 ◴[28 Aug 25 04:08 UTC] No.45048287{3}[source]▶
We tried that. It didn't go well for any involved.
replies(1): >>45052387 #
mathiaspoint ◴[28 Aug 25 14:10 UTC] No.45052387{4}[source]▶
At the time only side wanted to leave. That's no longer the case.
replies(1): >>45053526 #
1. Yeul ◴[28 Aug 25 15:36 UTC] No.45053526{5}[source]▶
Vast parts of the US are not economically viable and basically propped up by blue states.
replies(1): >>45056725 #
2. fc417fc802 ◴[28 Aug 25 20:32 UTC] No.45056725[source]▶
Not a great line of argument. Vast parts of the US are not food secure and are "basically propped up by" a conservative bread basket. Large portions of the agricultural industry are not economically viable without illegal immigrants. Much of the defense industry and military is populated by conservatives. Such examples are as numerous as they are irrelevant to sensible discussions of policy.
replies(1): >>45057003 #
3. bee_rider ◴[28 Aug 25 21:02 UTC] No.45057003[source]▶
It seems relevant to the chain of comments they were responding to. They are disagreeing with the comment that says multiple states might want to split up the country now, by pointing out that some of them might not be economically viable if they did.

You’ve come up with more reasons not to split up the country, by pointing out some ways the other parts of the country might have trouble.

I think (correct me if I’m wrong) you disagree with the partisan jab at the end, not the actual line of argument.

replies(1): >>45057206 #
4. fc417fc802 ◴[28 Aug 25 21:24 UTC] No.45057206{3}[source]▶
Fair enough. Indeed I object to the partisan framing but I suppose there is a valid point to be made about the generalized case here.

I wasn't thinking carefully enough because I've grown accustomed to such lines of argument being simultaneously partisan and irrelevant.