| ▲ | BobbyTables2 a day ago |
| I don’t understand - was this site or company based in Texas? Otherwise the general idea seems absurd that an individual state could freeze a domain impacting for the whole Internet… (EDIT: I won’t lose any sleep at the loss of such scum but the general principle seems a bit strange.) |
|
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > obtained a court-ordered writ directing Verisign, the company that maintains the “.com” domain registry, to place the domain “motherless.com” on a registry lock, hold, or similar status. So they're using the fact that Verisign is a US company and can therefore be leaned on. I'm not sure how I feel about this. What do other countries do who don't have Verisign to lean on? US companies really don't like being told what to do by governments of other countries, but when the shoe is on the other foot... |
| |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | > What do other countries do who don't have Verisign to lean on? They lean on their ISPs, see Spain and the La Liga controversy. | | |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR a day ago | parent | next [-] | | But that, more appropriately, only affects internet users in that country (ignoring the cloudflare network blocking that causes various other sites to also be blocked). This appears to basically wipe the site from the entire internet, for all countries. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | When you create the infrastructure, you make the rules. If a party doesn't like those rules, they are free to create their own replacement infrastructure and obtain global buy-in. ccTLDs already exist and their respective countries have sovereignty over those TLDs: the UK can disappear any .uk domain name it wants from the global internet. The .com TLD is American, and is therefore subject to American legal proceedings. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | walrus01 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The .com TLD is American, and is therefore subject to American legal proceedings. Ample precedent and prior case law exists that the US Federal government can obtain court orders to seize .COM domains. Going back 15 years now. State government that's another question entirely. When people say "American legal proceedings", the distinction between state courts and federal courts have two very different regions of responsibility and authority. | | | |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, that whole setup stinks. It actually gives a great use case to alternative DNS and decentralized infrastructure. Multiple Internets over Internet time. Sadly. Some damage can't be routed around. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do people care this much about this specific porn site that they are willing to upend global infrastructure? Principles don't make precedent, it takes money and actual interest to do that. The latent ability of the United States to shut off some specific domain within a TLD is never going to cause people at large to say "We'll make our own .com with blackjack and hookers!" In this hypothetical new system, other DNS roots would exist - and for practicality's sake, wouldn't collide with the "old Internet." Nobody is reissuing .coms, they will pick some new TLD or system entirely.. this today is known as a "ccTLD." Are people interested enough in true sovereignty beyond what ccTLDs offer? What does that even look like? Why do most businesses enjoying .com domains today want to move to your system of control? Nothing can be truly "decentralized" any more than the DNS of today is: countries effectively opt in one way or another - the internet is a cooperative system, much like international diplomacy. | | |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | "They came for the X and I said nothing" (XXX in this case) It's the precedent it sets, and especially with the ... sensitivity ... in the US at the moment around 'opinions on things', this feels like it could be the first pebble of an avalanche. |
|
| |
| ▲ | skillina a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The .com TLD is American, and is therefore subject too American legal proceedings This is not an "American" proceeding so much as a Texan one, and it's not clear that the State of Texas should have any jurisdiction over the .com TLD. | | |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As much as I agree, I think Texas is within their rights to ask Verisign to perform a massively overbroad action. Verisign is likely to respond depending on how good they think the relationship is between Texan lawmakers and the current Whitehouse administration. | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | See Article IV, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America. What a pesky document! |
| |
| ▲ | wizcaps a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you know how absurd it sounds to say in response “well you can go and create your own internet” | | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Welcome to the world: people own things, have power, and use violence to protect their interests. Stomping your feet on the ground because something's not perceived as fair doesn't really change things. China has its own internet with limited access to the global "internet," other countries are free to do the same. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your comment is no more constructive than the one you're replying to. Comments should get more thoughtful, not less, as the conversation goes on. For instance, how might we realistically replace the internet with a more neutral one? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | markdown a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's the correct way, because it applies only to residents of that jurisdiction. Texas should be able to prevent their local ISP's from showing illegal content, but not control what people see in other parts of the country/state. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. Pretty clear to me. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | comrade1234 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not confusing and you should understand what's happening for your own safety. This has been happening for a couple of decades internationally and now with USA states. This result means that Texas can take various means to block motherless. But more importantly no motherless employees should travel to Texas without risk of arrest. Same for abc/youtube/facebook employess traveling to India. You should be aware of this and monitor it in your industry. |
| |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > travel to Texas without risk of arrest This isn't some "non-extradition country without a treaty" scenario - "neener neener, if I don't step foot in your area you can't touch me." The United States does still have a functioning Constitution. If Texas wants to arrest an employee of these organizations, they can simply issue a Texan arrest warrant and other States will be compelled to enforce it. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can Texas compel other states to arrest abortion clinic workers? | | |
| ▲ | 15155 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did those abortion clinic workers perform an abortion in Texas? Then yes, they can. This website was providing services to the people of Texas, and Verisign provides services to the people of Texas as well. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | yes, they provided services to Texas because someone in the extended family was in Texas and now they don't have an extra relative. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Has there been a single attempt at pressing this issue judicially, or is this just hypothetical? Common law legal systems are not based on "neener neener, gotcha!" technicalities, and are not computer systems. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | So it's impossible to say what could happen until it actually happens? Then I think vacuum instability will destroy the Texas court. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Good luck with this theory. The site in question's domain was seized, they now have to fight to get it back. I don't think there's a vacuum so much as a wealth of "I don't like what's happening!" | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's definitely a vacuum, it's in between the atoms of the judge and the court building and I think that vacuum is metastable and will annihilate both. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | TurdF3rguson a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would think it only applies to named employees, right? | |
| ▲ | antonvs a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas. | | |
| ▲ | gnabgib a day ago | parent [-] | | > Even people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas. You know real, friendly, generous humans live in Texas, right? | | |
| ▲ | Pxtl a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm sure there are friendly and generous humans also living in North Korea and Iran. Doesn't mean I want to risk subjecting myself to their government's authority. | |
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | clearly more real, non-friendly, non-generous humans live in texas, who want their government to portray itself in such a way live in texas. a reasonable number of those people is 10-15%, not 51%+ | |
| ▲ | clipsy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Real, friendly, generous humans live in Haiti, too. That doesn't make it a good travel destination. | | | |
| ▲ | kibwen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The friendly, generous humans who resoundingly endorse the corrupt Ken Paxton's actions and will overwhelmingly vote for him to serve them in the senate this year? Actions speak louder than words. With friends like Texans, who needs enemies? | |
| ▲ | antonvs a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Until those people control the Texas government, I don’t see the relevance. I grew up in South Africa during the apartheid era, when black people weren’t allowed to vote or even participate in the economy at much beyond the level of slaves. I didn’t get upset when people criticized South Africa, or boycotted it, because the country’s actions certainly justified that. The entire US is in much the same situation now: in the process of flushing democratic governance down the toilet, elevating open corruption to the standard way of doing business, and flirting with authoritarianism to a degree virtually unimaginable just a few years ago. In that context, the #notalltexans whine sounds rather muffled from all that sand you’ve stuck your head in. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is South Africa doing today by comparison, in your opinion? Would you rather live in Johannesburg or Dallas? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Cpoll a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > The Office of the Attorney General will continue to use every available legal mechanism, including writs of attachment against domain names, to enforce Texas law and ensure that no company, regardless of where it is incorporated, can profit from exposing Texas children to harmful content. And Kick Online Entertainment S.A. appears to be incorporated in Luxembourg. The "S.A." is a mostly European thing, kind of like a "limited" company. |
|
| ▲ | WhyNotHugo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I won’t lose any sleep at the loss of such scum but the general principle seems a bit strange. That's generally key in making a precedent. The first case is someone nobody really cares for, but it's built a precedent where the next case must follow suit. |
|
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign (Under "Controversies".) > In March 2012, the U.S. government declared that it has the right to seize domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, .name, and .org if the companies administering the domains are based in the U.S. The U.S. government can seize the domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, and .name by serving a court-order on Verisign, which manages those domains. |
| |
| ▲ | BobbyTables2 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Perhaps for violations of _federal_ law… However, applying this for violations of _state_ law seems odd. Where does it end? What if a law enacted by a single US city’s city council is violated? Would US as a country seize the domain? | | |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm gonna get a few people together and all run for city council so we can seize profitable domain names for ourselves. "Sorry Meta, but BFE, Nebraska outlawed Farmville and now some guy named Bob owns facebook.com." |
| |
| ▲ | what a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Texas isn’t the US government? | | |
| ▲ | randbyte a day ago | parent | next [-] | | When people say “US government” they usually mean the federal government… | | | |
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | is verisign a texas company? id assume delaware, and so delaware, and the federal government have jurisdiction, not texas | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | TylerE a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No more than the government of France is the EU government. | | |
| ▲ | monksy a day ago | parent [-] | | It's more like the government of Hungry or Bulgaria in the EU analogy. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | Texas isn't like a small corrupt country. It's like a big corrupt important country, like Germany. If it was small and corrupt it would be ignorable. | | |
| ▲ | monksy a day ago | parent [-] | | They're a small corrupt country. The only thing slightly redeem about about them economic wise is their gas reserves. The way they run their state is very similar to a corrupt nation as well. They still want to break away from the US. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | So like Russia. | | |
| ▲ | monksy 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but Russia has the ability to operate independently. Texas pretends that they can, throws a fit when they have to support others who support them, and whines when they aren't supported. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jagged-chisel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it remains to be seen whether Verisign follows through. |
| |
| ▲ | jerrythegerbil a day ago | parent [-] | | https://dnschecker.org/#A/motherless.com | | |
| ▲ | EmbarrassedHelp a day ago | parent [-] | | So he managed to block the site globally for not forcibly violating the privacy of its users with mandatory age verification. The US court system really needs to do something about this, and overturn Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton in favour of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Motherless shouldn't have used a domain under Texan jurisdiction if they didn't want this to happen. | |
| ▲ | reactordev a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US court system is completely hamstrung by the current administration. | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | FWIW, the site isn't blocked globally. They just moved to a new domain. I do generally agree that local governments trying to forcefully exert their influence beyond their jurisdiction is deeply problematic. It wouldn't even be possible to host a website on the internet if this becomes normalized, due to being held to thousands of contradicting standards. At most Texas should have the authority to tell Texas ISPs to block traffic. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tailscaler2026 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I won’t lose any sleep at the loss of such scum Thank you for your virtue signaling. You're now registered as a lifetime GOP member. |
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. > Kick Online, which openly describes itself as a “moral free” company, ignored the lawsuit and refused to comply with the court’s order. It continued publishing and distributing harmful sexual material that was accessible to minors in Texas. This is the same website with a forum with millions of users trading information on how to assault their partner. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-as... FAFO. |
| |
| ▲ | pixl97 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | All fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like. | | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. Then it's violating the laws of a whole lot of places by serving pornography to adults. The existence of a web server doesn't feel like enough nexus to seize a domain. | |
| ▲ | profmonocle a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. What do you mean "serves"? Does that just mean not actively blocking users from Texas? Allowing your web site to be accessible regardless of user location is, and always has been, the default way to run a web site. Your assertion would mean that web site operators are beholden to the laws of all jurisdictions on the planet if they don't actively block those users. Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Also, keep in mind that geolocation isn't actually part of the Internet - it's an overlay that private companies have cobbled together that usually works. But it's not perfect, especially at the subnational level. Many times I've connected to public Wi-Fi and I get an alert that I've signed into something from across the country, because that's where the Wi-Fi provider's IPs are located. Are you sure that every jurisdiction in the world will accept that if gelocation gets it wrong, you're off the hook? Utah has already claimed that companies are responsible for complying with their laws even if the user masks their location with VPN. https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/05/11/utah-targets-v... | | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Simple: a local court having jurisdiction over those individuals would utilize their own laws and discretion to decide if they are required to extradite these people. If a country chooses not to comply, political consequences may ensue - this is basic international diplomacy. Russia doesn't seem to care about demands to extradite Snowden: they don't have to, they have the resources and political will to ignore these demands. Someday, perhaps to curry favor, they might comply. Smaller, weaker countries don't have the luxury of noncompliance, nor do they have the same ability to have their various legal proceedings enforced extraterritorially. Might makes right. | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Multiple times now in this thread you've parroted "might makes right" as if it's some universal axiom or law of physics (such as gravity, or the speed of light). This is what you actually believe as a moral guiding principle? Further, it seems to be presented in such a way to justify actions taken by one aggressive party in a legal dispute as inevitable, and therefore not worth forming any organized resistance to. Just roll over, show your belly, submit meekly to the more powerful (whomever), and accept your fate. I'm honestly wondering what sort of person goes through life like that. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Further, it seems to be presented in such a way to justify actions taken by one aggressive party in a legal dispute as inevitable You're free to fight back and contest it and be the Erin Brockovich you've always wanted to be - that is freedom. But the rest of us in reality understand how diplomacy, politics, and economic activity works. Interest (and by proxy, money) succeeds. People at large (not just neurodivergent, computer-employed, left-leaning folks) aren't all that interested in protecting your friendly neighborhood porn site (even if they frequent it or would be upset if it shut down), so these businesses lose. |
|
| |
| ▲ | inigyou 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the Anne Frank copyright case, the Anne Frank Foundation was found not liable for serving Dutch users (where the diary of Anne Frank is illegal) because they used "state-of-the-art geoblocking". It was also determined that VPN providers were not liable for making it possible to evade the geoblocking. |
| |
| ▲ | monksy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Today I learned that a foreign government operates in Texas. I didn't know that Texas is supporting and promoting the North Korean government: http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/first I wonder why they aren't being called out for anti-American terrorist groups. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-] | | Not a .com domain, so out of reach. Anything within US reach, individuals or entities, is fair game from a US judicial system perspective. Everyone learns this the hard way, it seems. | | |
| ▲ | MyMemoryfails a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think he means since IANA/ICANN assings country LTD, so technically it's also under USA jurisdiction. Waiting for the day when texas court demands deleting .ee LTD (since estonia is currently only country which has fought agaisnt age verification laws) | |
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you'll find people in the thread saying that if its accessible in texas, its in Texas under that setup, yes, twxas is illegally breaking US sanctions against north korea | |
| ▲ | profmonocle a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A federal court, sure. But this was a state court ruling on a state law. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-] | | My other comment in this thread has citations demonstrating SCOTUS support and approval for Texas to enforce these laws, as well as links to statue trackers showing where states and countries have implemented these age validation requirements for social media and adult content sites. It was a choice by Motherless and their holding company, Kick Online, to egregiously ignore Texas law; the law has been found sound by the US Supreme Court, and enforceable by Texas. These are the facts of the situation. Everything else to discuss on this is feelings and opinion, unless there are relevant facts not yet shared or discovered. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48953591 | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | | Importantly "egregious" is also opinion. The other point of view is that they "very reasonably" ignored Texas law because they're not in Texas. The Supreme Court found that the law was valid, but that ruling doesn't mean it necessarily applies in a situation like this. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Article IV, Section I Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't give them nexus. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Verisign does business in Texas, right? Are they just allowed to do that with no restrictions? Texas can't say "no, you may not sell services to Texans?" | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm talking about nexus over Kick. Verisign might be bound by Texas law, but they're not the one accused of breaking any laws here. This isn't a law for registrars, it's a law for websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | EmbarrassedHelp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem is that Paxton is attempting to do the same thing to every site that doesn't forcibly violate user privacy with mandatory age verification. Its part of Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundations goals, and its incompatible with privacy rights. | |
| ▲ | what a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users Nonsense. There is no reliable way to not serve your content to people in Texas. If anything, Texas should compel ISPs to not serve it to their Texas customers. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | That's the point. Texas will argue that every website operates in Texas so they get to take down every website. |
|
|