Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

wired.com

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#181
post #159
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abl…

Back to curation, back to whitelisted web rings, yes I think this is the only option

Nope. Schools require Google Classroom, and that contains workarounds.

Some of the worst stuff I've seen was via Google Classroom.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding my description. You don't just need "someone". You'll find "someone" say anything, including that the Earth is flat, its 40,000 years old, and we're controlled by lizard people. The standard isn't "someone". You'll find someone who claims a table of ICD codes or a stop sign appeals to their prurient interest and is sexual in nature. You'd need "the average person, applying contemporary communi…

You're just kicking the can down the road. "Who decides what's obscene?" "The average person." "Who decides who the average person is?" In your own argument you keep pointing to how arbitrary and abusable this average person standard is as though that makes it somehow a better choice, but at the end of the day the idea of the "average person" is just someone dressing their own personal feelings in a pretty hat. There…

Would you also argue any standard related to a "reasonable person" to be entirely arbitrary? That's an incredibly similar standard used to determine negligence and similar concepts.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just kicking the can down the road. "Who decides what's obscene?" "The average person." "Who decides who the average person is?" In your own argument you keep pointing to how arbitrary and abusable this average person standard is as though that makes it somehow a better choice, but at the end of the day the idea of the "average person" is just someone dressing their own personal feelings in a pretty hat. There…

Would you also argue any standard related to a "reasonable person" to be entirely arbitrary? That's an incredibly similar standard used to determine negligence and similar concepts.

name one

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#184
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just make sure it is not a Facebook owned VPN which is actually used to spy on its users. https://www.techradar.com/computing/cyber-security/facebooks...

I think it's silly to think that any VPN isn't spying on you, for profit or for government compliance.

Mullvad?

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that choking your partner is presumptively physical abuse, in the same way that controlling who your partner can talk to is presumptively emotional abuse. It’s possible to consent to these things, sure, and if some individual tells me they’ve thought it over and genuinely want it it’s not my place to contradict them. But it’s also quite easy to not consent, or to frame mere acquiescence as consent in response to social pressure. I’m intensely skeptical that this is the one kind of gendered violence against women that’s pursued primarily for benign, consent-respecting reasons.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you also argue any standard related to a "reasonable person" to be entirely arbitrary? That's an incredibly similar standard used to determine negligence and similar concepts.

name one

It's a pretty common standard used in a lot of places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

And other similar "vague" concepts arise elsewhere in the law, like someone "skilled in the art".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_i...

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#187
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wanna bet what the ratio is for e.g. Reddit?

A couple years back (around when they were adding the API restrictions/shutting down third party apps), I found a site dump that looked like it was around 50%.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will need to upload your ID to post on social media. Bills like that have already been introduced. Lawmakers have already said this is their intention. We are going to "think of the children" ourselves into needing to give every site our ID, or more, just to use the internet.

As the late George Carlin put it succinctly years ago, "fuck the children!"

The deceased drug adict with 0 grandchildren?

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#189
What's worse is that combined with the ruling in Mahmoud v Taylor, age verification can now be justified against anything considered "adult" or "pornographic" in nature - including LGBTQ+ storybooks, information on abortion or sexual health, discussion about HIV, or even just political dissidence if a state wants to reach particularly far. "Adult content" is nebulous and vague on purpose, and one party is taking advantage of that to attack minority groups and undesirables.

The point isn't to defend sex work (though you absolutely should), it's that sex workers are just the first targets when it comes to authoritarian change like this. They're the canaries in the coal mines of free speech, and the fact they're screaming in venues like Wired or Hacker News should really give everyone cause for concern that their stuff is next, unless things change.

And on the topic of parenting, look, I hate to be that dinosaur, but age verification doesn't stop minors from accessing adult content: competent, aware adults do, or at the very least put things into context when mistakes happen. As a child of the 80s-2000s who was effectively babysat by technology in some form, STOP DOING THAT. It's bad for the kids, it's bad for the parent-child relationship, and it's offloading your responsibilities as a parent to other adults and entities who did not consent to accepting them. It's about acknowledging that you won't be able to shield them completely for harm, and preparing to put things into a healthy context when mistakes do happen rather than demanding everyone else be punished just so you can avoid temporary awkwardness. We don't need tighter laws in the name of protecting kids, we need parents to do so - and build a society where at least one parent is always accessible to children to oversee their development. It means building technology that puts parental needs above profit motives, creating software that's quick and efficient to force children off apps and back into the real world, rather than turning them into mindless zombies watching videos all day.

Laws punishing consenting adults to "protect kids" are ineffective at their stated goals, but highly effective at punishing threats to a given regime. It's why fascists and authoritarians weaponize sex so early in their regime change: it's all about control in the most intimate way, to normalize its creep elsewhere.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the letter of the Texas law, neither do the commercial entities that have to verify identity: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB01181F.... Edit: Key bit there, the commercial entity or third party verification “may not retain any identifying information of the individual”.

Are there business destroying fines associated with non compliance? Otherwise it becomes a, “Whoopsie fine” when companies inevitably get caught selling out its user base.

They linked the law right there. Yes.

> $10,000 per instance when the entity retains identifying information in violation of Section 129B.002(b);

$10k per instance. If you have 1M users and retain their info, you're potentially facing a $10B fine.

The sites that were protesting these laws were saying they're concerned about such retention, so no doubt they're glad to know that they and their partners are banned from retaining that info and face extreme fines for doing so.

Post reply on HN