this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
772 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

84359 readers
3970 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This is just another dog and pony show. If the company doesn't have any offices or assets in utah, then they don't have to care. Utah can censor it's own internet if it doesn't like it.
This law simply has no legs to stand on.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The point is it will spread. Unless you can convince people to jump to i2p en masse it not going to end well.

I have to wonder how a webtorrent based setup on Yggdrasil would perform…

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But why would it spread? Utah can pass this because they don't have a large presense of tech companies with deep pockets to oppose it. But any state that does is going to be up against those tech companies. And we know money usually wins. The whole biting the hand that feeds you thing and all.

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

And how has big tech been fighting this exactly?

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I said they wouldn't in utah. But if a stae they have a major presence in tried, they would fight this. They fight anything that puts liability on them for any reason.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

They stand to make more money on implementation than they would lose in liability. Surveillance capitalism is in play here.

[–] Nindelofocho@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’ll be federal soon though.

No chance. Why do you think all the tech billionaires were at the inauguration. Plus, trump is very pro business. So are Republicans in general.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can states not sue companies that accept payment from citizens within their state?

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not 100% sure. But in general, interstate commerce is the federal governments domain.
And if the company has no assets in the state, what could a state court do if the company didn't pay? The state court has no jurisdiction outside the state. Now if I was an exec for that company, I wouldn't take any trips there just to be safe...

[–] thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No matter who I might be I wouldn't go to any part of the US

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

That's a good call right now.

[–] Snowcano@startrek.website 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was wondering how on earth this would work. If my organization doesn’t operate or host in Utah and they file suit against me why wouldn’t I tell them to pound sand?

Cause they don't expect it to work. They want to campaign on passing for the midterms before it is proven not to work.