denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
Denise ([staff profile] denise) wrote in [site community profile] dw_news2025-08-26 12:24 am

Mississippi legal challenge: beginning 1 September, we will need to geoblock Mississippi IPs

I'll start with the tl;dr summary to make sure everyone sees it and then explain further: As of September 1, we will temporarily be forced to block access to Dreamwidth from all IP addresses that geolocate to Mississippi for legal reasons. This block will need to continue until we either win the legal case entirely, or the district court issues another injunction preventing Mississippi from enforcing their social media age verification and parental consent law against us.

Mississippi residents, we are so, so sorry. We really don't want to do this, but the legal fight we and Netchoice have been fighting for you had a temporary setback last week. We genuinely and honestly believe that we're going to win it in the end, but the Fifth Circuit appellate court said that the district judge was wrong to issue the preliminary injunction back in June that would have maintained the status quo and prevented the state from enforcing the law requiring any social media website (which is very broadly defined, and which we definitely qualify as) to deanonymize and age-verify all users and obtain parental permission from the parent of anyone under 18 who wants to open an account.

Netchoice took that appellate ruling up to the Supreme Court, who declined to overrule the Fifth Circuit with no explanation -- except for Justice Kavanaugh agreeing that we are likely to win the fight in the end, but saying that it's no big deal to let the state enforce the law in the meantime.

Needless to say, it's a big deal to let the state enforce the law in the meantime. The Mississippi law is a breathtaking state overreach: it forces us to verify the identity and age of every person who accesses Dreamwidth from the state of Mississippi and determine who's under the age of 18 by collecting identity documents, to save that highly personal and sensitive information, and then to obtain a permission slip from those users' parents to allow them to finish creating an account. It also forces us to change our moderation policies and stop anyone under 18 from accessing a wide variety of legal and beneficial speech because the state of Mississippi doesn't like it -- which, given the way Dreamwidth works, would mean blocking people from talking about those things at all. (And if you think you know exactly what kind of content the state of Mississippi doesn't like, you're absolutely right.)

Needless to say, we don't want to do that, either. Even if we wanted to, though, we can't: the resources it would take for us to build the systems that would let us do it are well beyond our capacity. You can read the sworn declaration I provided to the court for some examples of how unworkable these requirements are in practice. (That isn't even everything! The lawyers gave me a page limit!)

Unfortunately, the penalties for failing to comply with the Mississippi law are incredibly steep: fines of $10,000 per user from Mississippi who we don't have identity documents verifying age for, per incident -- which means every time someone from Mississippi loaded Dreamwidth, we'd potentially owe Mississippi $10,000. Even a single $10,000 fine would be rough for us, but the per-user, per-incident nature of the actual fine structure is an existential threat. And because we're part of the organization suing Mississippi over it, and were explicitly named in the now-overturned preliminary injunction, we think the risk of the state deciding to engage in retaliatory prosecution while the full legal challenge continues to work its way through the courts is a lot higher than we're comfortable with. Mississippi has been itching to issue those fines for a while, and while normally we wouldn't worry much because we're a small and obscure site, the fact that we've been yelling at them in court about the law being unconstitutional means the chance of them lumping us in with the big social media giants and trying to fine us is just too high for us to want to risk it. (The excellent lawyers we've been working with are Netchoice's lawyers, not ours!)

All of this means we've made the extremely painful decision that our only possible option for the time being is to block Mississippi IP addresses from accessing Dreamwidth, until we win the case. (And I repeat: I am absolutely incredibly confident we'll win the case. And apparently Justice Kavanaugh agrees!) I repeat: I am so, so sorry. This is the last thing we wanted to do, and I've been fighting my ass off for the last three years to prevent it. But, as everyone who follows the legal system knows, the Fifth Circuit is gonna do what it's gonna do, whether or not what they want to do has any relationship to the actual law.

We don't collect geolocation information ourselves, and we have no idea which of our users are residents of Mississippi. (We also don't want to know that, unless you choose to tell us.) Because of that, and because access to highly accurate geolocation databases is extremely expensive, our only option is to use our network provider's geolocation-based blocking to prevent connections from IP addresses they identify as being from Mississippi from even reaching Dreamwidth in the first place. I have no idea how accurate their geolocation is, and it's possible that some people not in Mississippi might also be affected by this block. (The inaccuracy of geolocation is only, like, the 27th most important reason on the list of "why this law is practically impossible for any site to comply with, much less a tiny site like us".)

If your IP address is identified as coming from Mississippi, beginning on September 1, you'll see a shorter, simpler version of this message and be unable to proceed to the site itself. If you would otherwise be affected, but you have a VPN or proxy service that masks your IP address and changes where your connection appears to come from, you won't get the block message, and you can keep using Dreamwidth the way you usually would.

On a completely unrelated note while I have you all here, have I mentioned lately that I really like ProtonVPN's service, privacy practices, and pricing? They also have a free tier available that, although limited to one device, has no ads or data caps and doesn't log your activity, unlike most of the free VPN services out there. VPNs are an excellent privacy and security tool that every user of the internet should be familiar with! We aren't affiliated with Proton and we don't get any kickbacks if you sign up with them, but I'm a satisfied customer and I wanted to take this chance to let you know that.

Again, we're so incredibly sorry to have to make this announcement, and I personally promise you that I will continue to fight this law, and all of the others like it that various states are passing, with every inch of the New Jersey-bred stubborn fightiness you've come to know and love over the last 16 years. The instant we think it's less legally risky for us to allow connections from Mississippi IP addresses, we'll undo the block and let you know.

seaglassgarden: an orange and black butterfly (Default)
seaglassgarden ([personal profile] seaglassgarden) wrote2025-08-16 01:40 pm

oh to be a turtle on a log suspended in water

[current fronter: nightshade (it/zey)]

god, it's been a while. there's been a lot of beauty. maybe i'll talk about that, but it's not what i opened up the menu to write

so that friend i mentioned, the new one...the simplest thing to say is that it didn't work out. the conclusion ive drawn, however flawed it may be, is that they decided they wanted to date me very early on into meeting me and did not accept contradictory evidence. im an exploratory person at this stage of my life. i feel connections with people easily, but i don't like to decide what we will be to each other early on (or at all, really. i don't like putting people into roles with any sort of finality). i felt that i either had to be in constant subtle conflict with them as they put out frequent bids for (unearned) closeness, or i could give them what they wanted and feel my boundaries get worn down. and unfortunately i took the second approach too often and was hurt pretty seriously in the process

what astonishes me is that i wasn't even the one who stopped texting. i took a short break from texting them every day. i was emotionally drained and waited two and a half days to respond to their messages, which i feel is more than reasonable for an online friend that ive only known for around a month and a half. when i did respond, they asked if they should expect me to be absent like this sometimes and i said yes, that i sometimes took breaks from responding to DMs when i was busy. they said they were worried, so i tried to reassure them that i have plenty of people around me i see often who would step in if something were really wrong. and that was it. they never texted me again

i don't really know what happened. were they offended that i didn't want to talk every day? offended by the idea that id go to people in my physical proximity to help me if i needed something rather than an online friend? hurt that i didn't feel a strong enough attraction to them that made me want to text every day? i don't know. i feel strongly that they wanted something from me and decided that i should give it to them. and then when it became clear i wasn't going to give it to them, that was it. the possibility of my presence in their life as something else wasn't valuable enough to them, i guess

im disappointed that we couldn't be genuine friends. i think we had a lot of challenging and interesting conversations, which is something i really value and don't get a lot of. but i also feel that they needed a lot of reassurance and stimulus from me that i really don't give to people i don't know very well. i feel it when someone wants something from me—there's this pressure surrounding me that warps and twists my self-expression. i want to be better at being clear about what i am and am not willing to do. i don't want to stay in situations like this one where i can tell that someone's behavior springs from desire that i know im not interested in fulfilling. im adverse to disappointing people. but im practicing it, when necessary, and i think im getting better at it

also. i like to be my own being, which is something that previous partners and interested parties have often found threatening or unnecessary. there's been this pattern of people who like me insisting that we're practically the same, that what's good for them is good for me...im tired of it. the commonalities between myself and others are patches of a garden we are both familiar with and can easily walk together; they aren't proof of us being made of the same base materials. does that make sense? we can explore the overlaps between our behaviors and histories and preferences without being cut from the same cloth. and i do not look for others made of the same threads as me

but anyway, the beauty! my wife and i have started doing weekly movie nights, which is something he's been interested in for a while. last week, we watched clue (1985), and tonight we're going to watch knives out (2019). it's such a smart idea. if you want to watch a movie with someone, you naturally set aside some time, and from there it's very easy to make a whole date of it. you can shut out the whole world when you're watching a movie. perhaps a sweet treat gets involved...endless possibilities, really!

recently i discovered a wonderful queer + goth bakery in my area with a monthly rotating menu. my best friend and i have been going together, and ive been delighted by everything ive tried. they had peanut butter brownies this month—stunning! so rich!

i took a walk with my best friend through some man-made wetland used for environmental research and saw such wonderful things. birds! deer! frogs! turtles! and the many plants and algae keeping us company through the journey. here are a few pictures to close with:

Read more... )