Hacker News Reader

Comment by droithomme | Hacker News Reader

Your post contradicts the actual TOS that Coursera now has.

https://www.coursera.org/about/terms

> Notice for Minnesota Users

> Coursera has been informed by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that under Minnesota Statutes (136A.61 to 136A.71), a university cannot offer online courses to Minnesota residents unless the university has received authorization from the State of Minnesota to do so. If you are a resident of Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or (2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class will be done from outside the State of Minnesota.

You have stated that this "has had NO effect on Coursera's operation in Minnesota" and "I am a Minnesota resident, I am enrolled in multiple Coursera courses". Your continued enrollment is clearly in violation of the new TOS unless you are taking the classes from outside your state of residence.

View on HN

So is Coursera a university? I don't know the exact conditions for an institution to be considered a university but this seems like a bit of a stretch.

The state of Minnesota believes this law applies to Coursera. The Minnesota Office of Higher Education sent a letter to Coursera stating so, so it is reasonable for Coursera to conclude that Minnesota believes this applies to Coursera. Tricia Grimes of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education has publicly stated that letters were sent to "all postsecondary institutions known to be offering courses in Minnesota". She said (http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/minnesota-gives-cours...), "This has been a longtime requirement in Minnesota (at least 20 years) and applies to online and brick-and-mortar postsecondary institutions that offer instruction to Minnesota residents as part of our overall responsibility to provide consumer protection for students."

Do consumers need protection from something that is free?

Try this pill. It's free.

No. Wow, that was easy!

Not if you've been lied to and believe that pill is the only way to prevent a horrible death.

It would behoove anyone to research that information using more than one source.

Maybe someday lawmakers will regard the Internet the same way its native residents do: as a separate place. The right way to look at this problem from a native netizen's perspective: Coursera offers classes "online", and Minnesota residents travel to "online" (not Minnesota) while taking the class.

No.

First of all, just because someone spends 18 hours a day on a computer does not mean they're a "native netizen." That's not a real thing.

Secondly, you're still in [State/Country of residence] when you're online. Just because someone is checking Twitter in a bathroom in Minnesota does not mean they're no longer subject to laws and regulations in Minnesota.

Yes, that is the traditional view of jurisdiction, and the one that legacy territorial institutions prefer.

But it could someday soon seem very quaint and wrongheaded.

The Catholic Church used to claim universal jurisdiction, and some religions still see their laws as perpetually applying to all born to their faith. To the contrary of such claims, richer communities have moved to primarily territorial, largely secular, slightly voluntary (through the ability to choose your residence) sovereign jurisdictional authorities.

This evolution could continue to reach primarily membership/networked, mostly-voluntary, often-overlapping and situationally-contingent sovereign jurisdictional authorities. These might fall back to territorial governance only when the issues involved (property lines, effluents, etc) are themselves territorial.

Educating yourself via the network could be seen as something in a totally non-territorial realm, and thus of no proper interest to territorial authorities. That would leave networked-sovereignty citizens as free to ignore the dictates of overreaching territorial authorities as many today feel free to ignore the Pope or Sharia Law.

First of all, just because someone spends 18 hours a day on a computer does not mean they're a "native netizen." That's not a real thing.

"Native netizen" is a real thing because I said it is. An existence proof only requires the existence of a single instance.

Secondly, it's not about the amount of time spent using a computer (18 hours a day?!), but a state of mind. The corner of my mind responsible for identifying locations perceives "online" as a distinct physical location. If you asked me where I'm from, I could say City A, but if you asked me where I grew up, I would say "the Internet." Answering anything else would feel like lying.

The location of one's body is independent of the perceived location of one's mind. When it comes to the Internet, the second is more important.

Maybe not, but Stanford, Princeton, Berkeley, and the other institutions offering courses via Coursera grant degrees. From the update:

State law prohibits degree-granting institutions from offering instruction in Minnesota without obtaining permission from the office and paying a registration fee. (The fee can range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand, plus a $1,200 annual renewal.)

So this amounts to a relatively small money grab for all practical purposes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com