Posts by matunos@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #ASFWam5I06Oo3aR79k by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-02-01T22:27:26Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kairyssdal look I'm pretty progressive but even I think that $773 budgeted toward "wokeness" is excessive
       
 (DIR) Post #ASmRC7s7twa6xrH8vg by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-02-17T19:32:26Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kairyssdal thanks Don Lemon, for detailing the conversation from Nikki Haley's dumb ageist comments to one about your dumb sexist comments
       
 (DIR) Post #ATqQ4dmPgm7oQt7dYm by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-03-21T15:30:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @khoji @jeffjarvis tbf I also would be upset if my children joined the Christian cult
       
 (DIR) Post #AU0ILEujOus1ITT840 by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-03-26T06:02:39Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @mmasnick not on fire exactly… he gave it to the former shareholders
       
 (DIR) Post #AU5eC6aGAkeHdYk6ee by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-03-28T22:34:21Z
       
       3 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @yogthos the subsection a referred to is this? not to say an inventive prosecutor might not try, but it seems quite a stretch to say an individual using a VPN to access a service like Tiktok for themselves would be violating any of those provisions
       
 (DIR) Post #AU6kzG3yVkRc6pQGo4 by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-03-29T00:07:18Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @yogthos that's a definition, but the clause that references it in section (a) makes it harder to fit with an individual using a VPN simply to bypass IP range blocks (unless they're doing a lot more, like offering a public proxy)… it's also unclear how the US government would even impose filtering such that a VPN is required for access, unless the service itself (eg TikTok) imposed a country filter
       
 (DIR) Post #AU6kzHDEEpRNfolArw by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-03-29T00:10:39Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       in terms of open-ended wording, I think this part is more problematic, though potentially so broad it would have a hard time holding up in court against an individual VPN user (though a need to defend against it alone would be an unjust burden— I'd expect a lot of pro bono support from EFF and ACLU)
       
 (DIR) Post #AU6l0C52nvlK2wMwWe by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-03-29T00:15:44Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @yogthos yes I can definitely see them going after someone for using tor or running an open proxy service for a prohibited service, effectively becoming a middlemen for the banned service (though in the case of tor the question of intention might come in
       
 (DIR) Post #AZAAFdVa6KH5VitLuq by matunos@mastodon.social
       2023-08-27T17:27:21Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @clive @anildash i remember printing out code reviews back in the day. hard to imagine now (tbf online code review tools were in their infancy)