Hacker News Reader

Comment by giantg2 | Hacker News Reader

I don't think so. How do you think they can implement your third quote with substantially undermining VPNs? Do you know of other states closer to banning them, either directly or indirectly?

View on HN

There are many comments here that are confused about what the bill actually says. Headline very much implies something about a law banning VPNs. But that's not what the headline really means. So it's misleading.

The headline suggests that Utah is moving in the direction of banning VPNs, and is closer than other states. I don't see anything misleading about that, especially when you see the enforcement piece would fundamentally gut VPNs if implemented.

The most natural reading of "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is that there is a bill working its way through the statehouse that would ban VPNs if it passed. But that is an untrue reading.

Another reading of "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is "Utah did something that is not banning VPNs but (as an editorial opinion) is thematically and logically adjacent to that concept." This matches reality (under some viewpoint) but is an unnatural reading.

Hence, the sentence "Utah is close to banning VPNs" is misleading, as evidenced by others' comments. That you read the headline "correctly" does not show the headline to be forthright.

Where did you get the quote you are using in your argument? That isn't what the title says. Do you not think this law going into effect will indirectly lead to VPN bans? It will also move the Overton Window to where a ban is the next step.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com