Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

wired.com

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#141

[flagged]

This law is a pretext to kill anonymous speech on the Internet. It always starts with porn.

The government here is asking porn companies to share the real identities with them (else age verification is not effective - you have to validate it against something). This will expand out to sites about abortion, contraception, gay advocacy, and trans advocacy. There's no way it won't.

This is a concerted attempt to get around limitations on restricting free speech by the one cool trick of asking for ID first.

Heeeeeeey, we could be asking for ID for any reason, it's definitely not to track you!/s

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#142
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because .... ITS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, that the republicans in charge and religious right wing have shown they are perfectly OK with pushing for, shit its funny how project 2025 is like 60% implemented and people are still acting like its all some conspiracy and this weird religious right wing shit isnt actually happening

"IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE! First we gave women rights, then black people rights, and now we're trying to give trans people rights and rights to illegal immigrants!" To be clear, I support all of those things, but the point I'm making is that saying it's a slippery slope is a bad argument because A) the next steps are often based on opinion and not fact and B) what one person sees as a slippery slope another person sees…

If you're not arguing for it, stop being an apologist for it.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#145

I have kids and try very hard to keep them from inappropriate material online. The real dangers aren’t dedicated porn sites, but poorly managed social media sites. You can’t just block the domain. In many cases, the bad material comes from peers. Kids have always talked about “bad” things, but the internet super charges it. I generally support these efforts, but I’m also very cynical they help. Politicians focus on t…

You pretty much have to whitelist. I think we're heading towards a future where we give kids only devices that restrict internet access to known good content. There's more than enough known good content out there already to keep kids occupied until they come of age.

There will be managed whitelists that your kids can access, which sites must apply for and demonstrate compliance with the policy of, and you will be able to trust, so that you or other guardians in your family don't have to manage the minutia, which is effectively impossible for you to handle.

And your children will be able to access only these, and any other exception that you personally whitelist them to have.

And we other adults won't let kids, yours or anyone else's, have open access through us as proxies, just as we won't buy them cigarettes or alcohol if they asked us, because we all agree doing so is wrong. And we will have punishments for those who break this rule, just like we have had for generations for pre-internet vices.

We won't need to bother trying to censor the whole internet anymore. We'll just take away children's unlimited unsupervised access to it, just as we have come to a social and legal consensus to exclude them from other parts of the physical world we all agree they are not ready to handle.

I predict this will happen, major device makers like Apple will lead it, and everyone will eventually agree it is appropriate and in best interests of everyone.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#146
post #16
post #3

So how broad is this? Can a state now require you to verify your age and identity to read a newspaper they don't like?

Not unless that newspaper is "more than one-third sexual material".

To be precise, "more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors." What exactly does that mean? Anything that "promotes" a non-heterosexual, non-binary lifestyle? Anything that discusses safe sex?

Texas certainly could've written the law more narrowly, and chose not to. Small government for me, big brother for thee.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't particularly enjoy it, nor does the wife. But if erotic choking is consensual amongst two adults, what exactly is the issue? Are we to start policing how people enjoy fucking?

I don't follow the argument. In the sphere of gender roles, for example, I absolutely believe that adults should be allowed to set up whatever arrangements are best for them. I would never walk up to a traditionalist couple and demand that they set up their relationship how I'd prefer. But I would still find it very concerning to hear that most young men expect their wives to not work or not make male friends, even i…

> But I would still find it very concerning to hear that most young men expect their wives to not work or not make male friends, even if young women accepted it.

How is this in anyway related to what I said?

Were you attempting to reply to someone else?

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not suggesting that people actually authenticate to Pornhub using Login.gov's oauth, they would continue to auth (or not) as they do now. Login.gov can issue a token saying, in essence, "A user authenticated to me, and that user over 21, but I'm not going to identify them, I'll just give you a random GUID so this token will be unique". edit to add more details, since I'm thinking it through: the token would need…

What I've been thinking of is (although very similar): 1. Government has private/public key or similar for "Is above 18/21/legal age" 2. Site generates random data 3. Sends data to user 4. User somehow sends the data to government for signing (be it via some login or whatever) 5. User gets signed data back and sends it to the site 6. Site verifies the data against the public key I guess the signing part could be done…

It also needs to prevent sharing the age verification token.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't particularly enjoy it, nor does the wife. But if erotic choking is consensual amongst two adults, what exactly is the issue? Are we to start policing how people enjoy fucking?

You're replying to someone who conflates this type of practice with abuse. They are not educated, not curious, and you are not going to have a productive conversation with them.

I would agree that this is abuse if it was not consensual.

But that is not what the linked article says. The article does point out that there are risks with the practice, but if consensual it is only a matter of safety and education, not abuse.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever technical solution is implemented needs to: 1. Not inform the authentication provider about which websites you're visiting. 2. Not inform the websites about your meat space identity.

Unless I'm missing something, what I'm describing satisfies both of these (unless one or both parties are malicious).

> (unless one or both parties are malicious)

It should be assumed (for the purpose of evaluating if a system is actually secure) that they both are, and are working together.

Validation can be done cryptographically so that assertions (like age) can be verified by one party, and consumed by another party, without either of those parties being able to tie the combination together, even if they are actively cooperating.

Post reply on HN