Skip Navigation

Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws

Decentralized social network Mastodon says it can’t comply with Mississippi’s age verification law — the same law that saw rival Bluesky pull out of the state — because it doesn’t have the means to do so.

The social non-profit explains that Mastodon doesn’t track its users, which makes it difficult to enforce such legislation. Nor does it want to use IP address-based blocks, as those would unfairly impact people who were traveling, it says.

146 comments
  • Does the law in Mississippi apply to the geographic region and airspace, or only residents?

  • Also states don't have one company to go after. It is nearly impossible to track down and file court orders for if your lucky non-profits in other countries.

    Like I don't think there are many people that host Mastodon instances that will listen to a court order out of the goodness of there heart.

  • So in this whole embarrassing dick measuring contest Eugen was wrong and Mike Masnick was right, then. Turns out "real decentralization" or not, Masto/Fedi's structure doesn't do anything to bypass this nonsense.

    This is not new. People constanty claim AP and Fedi have benefits or features just for being decentralized that they absolutely do not have, but I have to admit I'm kinda shocked that Eugen will do that exact thing without any more self-awareness than the average Masto user. He should know better.

    • Well even if mastodon.social complies, there are many many other instances to choose from, from all different countries

      and even other similar platforms like Sharkey or Mbin that work with Mastodon

      • It doesn't matter, though. They all have the same choice to make: comply, shut down in that territory... or be fined an insane amount.

        Eugen argued... well, pretty much what you are arguing now. The question Bluesky guy posed to him is what Mastodon.social would do and how would the presence of smaller instances prevent the issue, especially for instances without the resources to comply at all in the first place.

        Eugen did not respond to that, but Mastodon.social just did, and the answer is... Mastodon.social will do the same thing as Bluesky and so will every other instance.

        Because of course it's pretty obvious that having a decentralized platform doesn't help with stupid regulation, because stupid regulation applies to every instance. There's no reason decentralization would bypass a blanket requirement unless the legal requirement has carved an exception for smaller platforms (and even then there's a question of what counts as a platform in that scenario).

        And the thing is... I'm okay with you not having though that through, but Eugen certainly must have. Right? I mean, they had a pretty well thought out answer for Techcrunch in 24 hours, they must have given it some thought. It's an unforced communication error.

    • Interesting that you think Eugen is the bad guy here.

      • "The bad guy" is not a thing I've thought about anybody since I was 12 years old.

        I think Eugen jumped onto a common talking point among Fedi people when they try to highlight the difference between Masto and Bluesky and he didn't think it through.

        Like I said, I'm surprised he messed that up. He certainly should know the impression he was giving wasn't accurate.

  • <insert number of Mastodon instances>

    * 10,000

    Some lawyer on Capitol Hill: "Hmm..."

    Not if, when.

    Who knows, the same demand may be given of certain other federated social media sites in a few months.

146 comments