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

US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 229 posts

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#201

Post by surgical_fire »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #185
surgical_fire wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It’s possible to consent to these things

Some people have odd kinks. While it may weird you out (and in many ways it weirds me out too) I am far less judgemental about it. If people want to be choked while fucking, well, by all means, as long as I am not involved. Most kinks I hear about are things I have no desire to experiment myself.

> I’m intensely skeptical that this is the one kind of gendered violence against women

Why do you presume that women are the only ones being choked?

And also why do you presume that a consenting adult is actually not consenting to something they are actively engaging in? Why infantilize people like that?

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#202

Post by heavyset_go »

superfrank wrote: post #77
cchance wrote: 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…

We are living through a real life example of the fallacy fallacy: the fallacy that because an argument contains a logical fallacy, that does not mean it is not true.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#203

Post by heavyset_go »

yupyupyups wrote: post #59
cchance wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its bullshit a kid can buy a vpn without an ID for 3$ and skip any restriction, and even without that 90% of international porn sites, so the law fixes nothing but opens a slippery slope, whats next a law saying US needs a "Great Firewall" to protect the children from international deviancy. And it also just opens the possibility for centralized ID verification services being breached and tieing identities to their m…

Kids don't go through the hoops to buy and install a VPN just to access porn. If they were not exposed to it in the first place, which is very easy without a VPN, then they wont have the interest to get one.

Have you ever been or met a kid?

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#204

Post by tguvot »

Canada wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #124

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 abl…

There are kosher phones that have all kinds of restrictions on Internet access. Mostly used by Orthodox

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#205

Post by toofy »

silverquiet wrote: post #26

[flagged]

if you had kids, would it bother you if your neighbor told you legally what your kid has access?

“no, your kid can’t have access to that pg-13 movie. why? because i won’t let my kid watch it. therefor your kid can’t either.”

if that would irritate you, then this should absolutely irritate you as well.

these people need to learn to raise their own kids and quit dictating to everyone else. we would never try to ban their waltons or whatever. they need to mind their own business.

more than 10,000 book bans have happened already, this is about to get much much worse.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#206

Post by toofy »

Canada wrote: post #165
cchance wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its bullshit a kid can buy a vpn without an ID for 3$ and skip any restriction, and even without that 90% of international porn sites, so the law fixes nothing but opens a slippery slope, whats next a law saying US needs a "Great Firewall" to protect the children from international deviancy. And it also just opens the possibility for centralized ID verification services being breached and tieing identities to their m…

We need to put these restrictions on device, and hard socially punish anyone who breaks the pact. Like, our kids get phones with parental control, they get the whitelisted approved stuff only on those. If I give my kid a general purpose computer with unsupervised access, I better be on top of that, especially if your kid is over. It's dangerous. We are the adults here, we have to control the children for their own go…

> we have to control the children for their own good

as long it’s your own children. you don’t get to dictate what other’s kids cant see.

religious fundamentalists don’t get to say other kids can’t see a gay wedding. same thing in the other direction, i don’t get to say that other peoples kids can’t see a straight wedding. you won’t see me screaming “straight weddings are inappropriate propaganda for a child to see!”

it’s weird af to control what other peoples kids can or can’t see.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#207

Post by pyuser583 »

tguvot wrote: post #204
Canada wrote: 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…

There are kosher phones that have all kinds of restrictions on Internet access. Mostly used by Orthodox

The Mennonites have nice phones too.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#208

Post by msgodel »

pyuser583 wrote: post #181
kyleee wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Heh. This among other reasons is why parents who care a lot put so much effort into homeschooling or so much money into private school.

It would be nice to have sane defaults but when you have so many people with so many opinions that's not really possible.

Re: US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

#210

Post by [deleted] »

pyuser583 wrote: post #124

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN