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

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

ellsberg.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#131

Post by lurk2 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #113
lurk2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any examples of the finding being used to stymy sex education in schools?

There are many, many, many examples of every previous round of censorship in the name of "Think of the Children" being used against anything disliked by people in power, and filtered through the lens of the most conservative backwards puritans. Take a look at any banned book list. This is not a slippery slope fallacy, it's basic pattern recognition.

> There are many, many, many examples of every previous round of censorship in the name of "Think of the Children" being used against anything disliked by people in power

Do you have any available?

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#132

Post by _Algernon_ »

chgs wrote: post #127
_Algernon_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age verification is easy. Age verification that leaves no record, is anonymous, and not circumvent-able is difficult. In the physical world it relies on the fallibility of human memory. No such luck with replicated databases.

Site generates random key Key and verification passed to verifier Verified list is published Site pulls list and checks its number has been verified Site doesn’t know who it is, and verifier doesn’t know which site was verified against

How do you prove that the generated key by the site is actually randomly generated? I certainly don't trust a random porn site to do this right.

If the verified list is tied against identity, there is only a simple law change required to de-anonymize everything.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#133

Post by arrosenberg »

api wrote: post #41
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device. I run a pi-hole that blocks ads and porn, but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people. There are some commercial products but they are expensive and also take time and at least a little tech ability to set up. … and of course…

It takes less than 5 minutes to set up NextDNS with the same functionality and it costs $2 a month for unlimited DNS calls. If you download the app it absolutely can police cellular.

If these legislators cared about keeping kids safe, they’d be focused on getting them off social media, not stopping adults from exercising free speech.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#135

Post by baq »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #103
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Age verification is easy. Age verification that leaves no record, is anonymous, and not circumvent-able is difficult. In the physical world it relies on the fallibility of human memory. No such luck with replicated databases.

An id card is a bearer token.

You can get an anonymous, cryptographically signed, certified legal bearer token confirming your age only, or identity or whatever by a centralized service, be it government or high trust private organizations who need to verify your identity anyway like banks. With some smarts you can probably make such a token yourself so the root bearer token issuer doesn’t have the one you use to browse pornhub.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#136

Post by andsoitis »

api wrote: post #41
al_borland wrote: post #10

All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…

Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device. I run a pi-hole that blocks ads and porn, but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people. There are some commercial products but they are expensive and also take time and at least a little tech ability to set up. … and of course…

> parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device

Tough luck, I say. If you’re going to bring humans into this world, you better do a great job at it and not externalize responsibility or create a nuisance for others.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#137

Post by olddustytrail »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #128
olddustytrail wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally what EU privacy laws are about and guess what... Anti government folk from the USA hated them and decided they were government overreach.

Please, the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really. Privacy from companies maybe, privacy from governments and cops, certainly not.

What did your MEP say when you complained to them about it?

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#138

Post by _Algernon_ »

baq wrote: post #135
_Algernon_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age verification is easy. Age verification that leaves no record, is anonymous, and not circumvent-able is difficult. In the physical world it relies on the fallibility of human memory. No such luck with replicated databases.

An id card is a bearer token. You can get an anonymous, cryptographically signed, certified legal bearer token confirming your age only , or identity or whatever by a centralized service, be it government or high trust private organizations who need to verify your identity anyway like banks. With some smarts you can probably make such a token yourself so the root bearer token issuer doesn’t have the one you use to br…

Which inevitably can be deanonymized after a simple law change, mandating the required data to be reported.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#139

Post by chgs »

dev1ycan wrote: post #61

As an outsider seeing the US destroy everything people associate with America in a couple months is sort of morbidly funny...

When it comes to nudity and sex America has always been puritanical.

Blood and guns, sure. Freedumb

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#140

Post by arrosenberg »

ronsor wrote: post #130
kfajdsl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an state AG tries to prosecute an entity that has no ties to the state other than content being passively accessible, that's probably another supreme court case if it doesn't get immediately decided in favor of the defendant in the lower courts. You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in. If Texas wants to block content from enti…

Isn't this covered by the "full faith and credit" clause? [0] [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/AL...

Technically anything is possible with the Calvinball Supreme Court, but states can choose not to extradite their citizens. E.g. NY has a shield law for abortion doctors.

https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/police-departments...

Post reply on HN