{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreidkv7t36rpbyappqnnklzb67z4qdkh4tvlled7kzp5xmcvx3fpjpm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:hqad6xwuzg7oqfmwylfkvqfm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mguzqxsvbqn2"
  },
  "path": "/viewtopic.php?t=33235&p=271048#p271048",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-12T16:36:41.000Z",
  "site": "http://forum.palemoon.org",
  "textContent": "> First off: New York can pass all bills it wants but it's not our task to police the internet, and I will not make it our task…I will not geoblock based on this nonsense… It will be the responsibility of those regions to block outbound access to sites not complying with their local laws, just like any other good authoritarian country does. Otherwise? We don't care.\n\nThis is the answer I predicted and hoped to read. Good man!\n\n\n> So, the **hypothetical** :\n\nAye, I hope even the New York bill remains moot. Planning for such a nightmare scenario is nevertheless wise, and I thank you for giving it attention.\n\nI think the following questions will likely be of interest to any webmaster unhappy enough to be caught up in this in the worst case.\n\n> Any of our websites can be hosted in any jurisdiction, so if there's an imposed restriction on geographical server location, it can be moved elsewhere. They are currently not hosted in the USA…and I don't intend to host them there.\n\nWhere would you recommend somebody host a server for a personal website if he cannot do so at home, possibly due to unfavourable local laws? Would you know any providers which would not impose Cloudflare or other Pale Moon-unfriendly features?\n\n\n> If you read the bill carefully, you'll notice [that] the bill asks that a website, service or application checks a device API to get a user's age group, and restrict access based on that age group if the site, service or application is age-limited in its content. **It is incumbent on the connecting client/device to provide this signal.** If such a signal _isn't_ received, then we on our end **can rightfully assume it is not a covered manufacturer** and this entire proposed legislation doesn't apply… [It would] be easy to comply with [age restrictions] by checking for a signal from whatever client/device that is covered, and blocking as-needed (e.g. by checking a request header or browser API[,] which would be similar to receiving a parental control signal but with the difference that parental control would be client-side.\n\nI imagine that parental control signals like this have likely existed for decades, and your mention of browser headers this can be done without adding even more intrusive JavaScript to websites, even on the server side. Out of curiosity, would you know how servers have traditionally coped with parental control signals?\n\n\n> It's the dollar amount of the potential monetary fines with most of these new laws that catches my attention, and the vague way that most of them are written. They are an overzealous bureaucrat's dream.\n\nThe egregious vagueness stood out to me, too. The way I first read it, I thought it was asking that, whenever Chalmers tries to access Wikipedia from his Utica home, the Wikimedia Foundation (or, at its most extreme, the whole Wikipedia community!), as a _covered developer_ , must contact either HP or Microsoft (who would both literally qualify as _covered manufacturers_) on the spot about whether Chalmers’ computer supposedly belongs to an adult upon determining where he is, at least, if Chalmers ‘launches’ Wikipedia, whatever that is supposed to mean for a static site. I doubted this was quite how it was meant, but it is not as if the intended reading is much better.\n\n* * *",
  "title": "Forum and website • Re: The site and an idiotic bill",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-12T16:36:41.000Z"
}