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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by reliabilityguy »

salawat wrote: post #67
api wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when their friends have them? It is very hard for parents who aren’t tech savvy or are busy (single parents or both work) to police this stuff. I’m playing devils advocate because if we pretend this isn’t a problem eventually governments will force onerous regulation. It is a problem. We need to come up with better solutions if we don’t want worse ones. It’s devils advocate because I think while kids sho…

Sounds like marketing is the problem. In fact, I'd say 90% of the Internet's more problematic aspects disappear once you get rid of marketing/monetization. We had a good thing. We let mercantilism and surveillance capitalism ruin it.

To some extent, Section 230 is to blame.

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

#183

Post by loeg »

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…

> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids.

This is simplistic. I think you'll find parents are not a uniform bloc in favor of this kind of overreach.

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

#184

Post by SoftTalker »

arrosenberg wrote: post #133
api wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Comcast’s Xfinity service doesn’t let you change DNS in their router and blocks queries to other DNS providers if you are using their router.

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

#185

Post by [deleted] »

kelnos wrote: post #164
Sharlin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At this point I think accusing conservatives of hypocrisy is blase and yesterday's news. Of course conservatives are hypocrites. All they care about are their end goals, and they will say and do whatever they need to say and do in order to achieve them. One of those goals involves enshrining Christian values into law. Christian values themselves are often hypocritical and contradictory. And inconsistent: ask 10 Chris…

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by kelnos »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #72
xp84 wrote: post #27

So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…

The fundamental problem—and it's a big one—is that in the physical world, age verification does not result in a centralized log of when and where I was, and what I did. If I buy cigarettes I show my paper id to some dude and then buy smokes. It's transient with no record (except the fallible memory of the bloke doing the ID check). This is not true for the proposed age verification schemes for the internet and that i…

That's not even universally true, though. I've been to bars where they scan the barcode on my drivers' license. I assume that's more convenient than reading the data off it, so maybe they're just doing it for convenience and aren't storing the data anywhere, but who knows, maybe they are. Maybe there's a database somewhere with a list of name, date, time, location tuples for some of my bar visits from years ago. Creepy.

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

#187

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#188

Post by root_axis »

meowkit wrote: post #70
michaelt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we expect Apple to implement a special, privacy-preserving age proof for porn viewers? Apple hates porn, when it's on websites like Tumblr.

Zero knowledge proof smart contract verification called by the site interested in your age. You provide your public key wallet with its government issued soul bound NFT of your identification. This can be done, its not that crazy, it just requires a bunch of people to get their heads out of their sand in regards to tech and blockchain, which admittedly might be a harder problem. —— Additonal thought- if you don’t und…

ZKP is all you need. The NFT or blockchain stuff is unnecessary can be discarded.

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

#189

Post by dyauspitr »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #58
useless_eater wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old? Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given wh…

Because just like the argument with social media in my opinion it’s better to have governmental regulation on these things so millions of households don’t have to have the same argument with their kids and kids not on social media platforms don’t get left out of a significant percentage of teenage life effectively socially stunting them.

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

#190

Post by throw0101c »

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…

> 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?

Kind of unfortunate that PICS[1][2] and POWDER[3][4] never really took off: it allowed web sites to 'self-label' and then browsers (and proxies?) could use the metadata and built-in rules/filters to determine if the content should be displayed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...

[2] https://www.w3.org/PICS/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...

[4] https://www.w3.org/2007/powder/

Post reply on HN