Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

t4t.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 411 posts

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#351

Post by moate »

azernik wrote: post #269
itake wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just forcing people to use VPNs Does this really even work? The law isn't "if the user's ip address appears to be from this state, then you must require id". Properly enforcing georestrictions like this costs money and destroys businesses, but that is kinda the point.

It provides plausible deniability. "We did our best, judge"

It's not even plausible deniability, it's literally "how are we supposed to know what location people are in other than ISP?" That's the de facto determinate of location online. The government hasn't taken the position that a bar checking driver's licenses to confirm someone's age provides "plausible deniability", but rather that they're doing their part to comply with the law, even if some users are going to use fake IDs to cheat the system.

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#352

Post by robertlagrant »

monkeyfun wrote: post #328
robertlagrant wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The parents themselves are responsible for letting their children browse the internet unsupervised. Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this. > The culture of over-reaction to danger Which is it? Is it that parents haven't protected their children enough, or that children don't need protection from watching pornography?

>Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this. ...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim. Also, on your second point, you seem to be almost strawmanning -- I see no claim from the person you're replying to that they think kids need more protection. They're stating that parents are…

> ...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Just anything. Beheading videos. Whatever. I can't imagine anyone not realising this is a virtual certainty for some older kids to show younger kids.

> I see no claim from the person you're replying to that they think kids need more protection.

They called it "danger".

> there's a lot that can be done to restrict access in an authoritarian manner to those kids

But not to their kids' friends' older siblings. If you're not talking about that then I don't think you're particularly replying to my comment.

> I also personally believe education is more important than any sort of restriction, and am always against censorship or surveillance policies in general.

I think in this case this fights against the idea that some concepts or experiences are not appropriate for certain ages, and some of them are not currently curatable by parents in a way that they always have been throughout history.

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#355

Post by cperciva »

system2 wrote: post #273
cperciva wrote: post #185

I am very concerned about this being a target for malicious actors. I'd offer to help you with security but I've never even heard of some of your stack so I'm probably not in a position to help. Is there anyone here who is familiar with OP's stack and has security experience?

This is exactly what I thought about when I first read the post. This is not a good idea in my opinion.

I disagree -- this is a good idea, because trans people need a community especially in times like this.

It just needs some attention paid to security.

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#356

Post by mmooss »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #314
mmooss wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the post-Karl Popper academic landscape OT: What do you mean by that? I know Popper, I can guess what you mean, but what do you mean?

I mean that scientific theories nowadays are supposed to make testable predictions, and when those predictions consistently fail, you have to say "okay, this theory is not correct". If your theory is capable of "explaining" every possible piece of evidence, it's not a scientific theory. (Some people would go further than Karl Popper, saying that it's not even meaningful .) I'm pretty sure this is in The Open Society…

Thanks. Not to dive too far into the weeds ... but I'm wondering if there's something I misunderstand about Popper:

> If your theory is capable of "explaining" every possible piece of evidence, it's not a scientific theory.

Do you mean, if your theory is not falsifiable? If your falsifiable theory is not (yet) falsified, if you magically know it never will be falsified, isn't it still a theory?

(If it's just a matter of wording on an Internet comment, then sorry to bother you - I don't mean to play gotcha.)

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#357

Post by valval »

squigz wrote: post #182
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #169

Not sure if mentioned. But add some encryption, and some way to identify bad actors. With the recent executive orders, it might become dangerous to be trans. Yes, it has always been dangerous. But now more like 'the purge' type dangerous with roving gangs with dogs chasing trans people through the country side. I'd think trans people would be in 'hide' mode. Generally, I wonder if anybody not a maga brown shirt, is i…

> But now more like 'the purge' type dangerous with roving gangs with dogs chasing trans people through the country side. Do you honestly believe anything like this is going to happen?

[flagged]

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#359

Post by pseudalopex »

computerthings wrote: post #325
fwip wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most communities act differently when it's just themselves in a space they own, as compared to when they're in a space that is less homogenous. The queer scene is a lot more open with sexuality than the cishet one. Even (cis) men have "locker room talk," things you wouldn't say when around most women.

> Even (cis) men have "locker room talk," things you wouldn't say when around most women. Dunno, if you can't say it around women, at all ever, then it probably doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'd say you share raunchy stuff with people you know to not have a problem with it, and depending on what it is that might be your guy friends more often, sure. But I know men who are way more stuck up than some women I know, not…

> I just disagree that cis men say stuff amongst themselves they wouldn't around women, while homosexual or bisexual men would never do that.

Nothing they said implied the 2nd part even slightly. And not because most homosexual and bisexual men are cis.

Re: Show HN: I built an active community of trans people online

#360

Post by almatabata »

KronisLV wrote: post #302
mmooss wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several US states now require age verification for adult content (I don't know how that is defined). A case challenging such laws is being considered by the US Supreme Court, but most experts believe the court will allow the age verification. That may mean users identifying themselves, which seems dangerous. (It should not at all be dangerous, but it is.) All you need is some phobic government official to sue or inve…

> Perhaps there's a way to do age verification while minimizing privacy risks? For example, verify their age, give them their credentials, then delete the PII? I wonder why trusted third parties haven't sprung up around this very concept to the degree of OIDC (it's almost everywhere ), you could have companies that allow uniquely identifying people, without having to manage or even get their PII directly. Service wan…

> the UUIDs could also be service specific, so they cannot be cross referenced across different sites in case of leaks.

Assuming services play nice. What if they start sharing UUIDs amongst each other, for example for advertising purposes?

Worse what is stopping companies from creating both service and verifier? Nothing, as Amazon already has both. I do not trust them not to abuse this.

And even if in theory all companies do the respect my privacy. I am one government away, from seeing a law passed, that makes it mandatory to report all UUIDs to the government. The potential for tracking is off the charts.

Right now it takes forever to trace everything. You can realistically only do it for a select targets. If you implement this UUID system, suddenly it becomes much easier to trace everyone's actions.

Post reply on HN