Lofgren’s bill would impose site-blocking requirements on broadband providers with at least 100,000 subscribers and providers of public domain name resolution services with annual revenue of over $100 million. The bill has exemptions for VPN services and “similar services that encrypt and route user traffic through intermediary servers”; DNS providers that offer service “exclusively through encrypted DNS protocols”; and operators of premises that provide Internet access, like coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and universities.

Invest in VPN providers.

  • SquiffSquiff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m missing the part where consumers are required to use their ISP DNS. I never do, in favour of CloudFlare DNS, Google DNS, etc

    • Quokka@mastodon.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      @SquiffSquiff @some_guy They do that here to some degree. ISP’s DNS give a shitty warning about pirating if you try to visit any of the normal places for that kind of thing. Personally i just use a local DNS over HTTPS server. Which reminds me I need to see if he/she would like a donation.

    • LordCrom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Whoever wrote this bill probably lacks the basic network skills to know you can do that.