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

221–230 of 1001 posts

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

#221

Post by ndriscoll »

yardie wrote: post #107
ndriscoll wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

An ADA compliant bathroom is almost 200sqft. And they will need at least 2 of them. So now that 1000sqft is now 600sqft. And they still need a place to store and process books, reading rooms, etc.

> The ADA Standards, on the other hand, do not address the number of toilet rooms or fixtures required for a facility, but instead specify which ones must be accessible where provided.

https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-6-toilet-roo...

For what it's worth, chatgpt and random reddit comments claim you'd need closer to 50sqft for a compliant bathroom. Maybe that's nonsense.

In any case, their Facebook page is full of recent pictures of children in the library, so it seems that they were indeed unsurprisingly just posturing.

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

#222

Post by yakz »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #174
archagon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).

Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.

The government didn't do that.

"The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf

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

#223

Post by nikanj »

tines wrote: post #162
baq wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No idea why you’re getting downvoted when there’s a slow but unstoppable migration of everything into discord or other walled, somewhat LLM-proof gardens.

Walled gardens are only LLM-proof until some AI company makes an offer for the data.

I don’t care about that. I care about the number of DMs I get from ”superhorni420” offering me her nudes

I don’t really see a future where Discord would let an AI company post the kind of 24/7 porn+crypto+scams you get in your email spam folder

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

#224

Post by moron4hire »

Eavolution wrote: post #208
ndriscoll wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some states stores are required to scan IDs. I'd be surprised if e.g. Kroger weren't storing that information. All of these porn laws I've read at least ban any storage. As far as I know digital ID standards are also at least designed to allow only sharing "over18" without other identifying information.

And if I provide it how do they prove they aren't storing it other than their word, which is untrustable for many reasons?

You don't actually provide it to the porn site. Everything goes through a 3rd party escrow. The site you're trying to access only gets a message from the trusted ID partner that you are indeed the age you say you are.

Now, I still hate the idea that any corporation is storing my ID, but it's not every Tom Dicken' Harry porn site you might be viewing.

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

#225

Post by const_cast »

aaaja wrote: post #197
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…

This is a barrier put in place so that children are less likely to casually access these sites while they're browsing around. As an adult, no-one is forcing you to view pornographic websites. If you don't want to provide your ID as per these laws, simply refrain from viewing. It really is that straightforward a choice.

Right, so you're admitting what we already know to be true: it's censorship.

Now, I can get behind some censorship if it's for very good reasons. As soon as it's for moralistic reasons, you've lost me. This is a morality law. Morality laws are bad, period. We need real, concrete reasons for blocking content and enforcing censorship - not morality.

Why not? Because morals change from person to person and throughout history. What an evangelical thinks is moral is different from what I think is moral.

If the internet existed during times of slavery, would they have censored websites addressing freedom because it is "immoral"? In my mind, yes. That's a problem with the entire thought process. So, we should throw the thought process out.

I don't know what the future holds in 10 years, 20 years, 30. I don't want to be bound to laws that rely solely on morality. That's just asking for trouble.

I mean, even just the word "pornography" is a moral footgun. Who defines that? Because a large portion of the US believes anything containing homosexuals is automatically pornographic, regardless of the material.

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

#227

Post by tolerance »

_bent wrote: post #149

We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now. There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok. But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences. Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of th…

[flagged]

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

#228

Post by latency-guy2 »

olddustytrail wrote: post #106
base698 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, lock you up for Facebook posts UK is the bastion of privacy.

Firstly, the UK is not in the EU. That's what Brexit was. Secondly, incitement to violence is illegal in most countries. If you think it's not in yours, why not try it and see where you end up?

> Secondly, incitement to violence is illegal in most countries. If you think it's not in yours, why not try it and see where you end up?

By all means, if that's the way you want to represent the issue, then there is no discussion to be had.

I will, however, represent it this way:

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

I can be compelled in a few situations in this incomplete list were of the "deserved" type. But you can't convince me on all of them.

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

#229

Post by convolvatron »

CPLX wrote: post #203
dmix wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It existed only on the edges, usually in softer pragmatic forms, and stopped a lot of bad ideas as a pressure group. Characterizing the entire development of software and the internet in 90s-2000s as based on libertarian techno-utopinanism is largely manufactured narrative though. One I keep seeing pop up more and more. Largely by people trying to push poorly though out authoritarian gov-controlled internet by spinni…

The “freedom” of the early internet was bullshit, because it just meant “freedom to make money” and “freedom from having to deal with the consequences of your products on regular people.” It most decidedly did not mean “freedom from corporate hegemony” which is how we are where we are now, where children are matched with pedophile groomers[1] and delivered endless advertisements for freelance porn practitioners for p…

it depends on which early free internet you're talking about. mine strictly forbid commercial usage at all - and it was lovely.

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

#230

Post by const_cast »

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.

The EU is both pro-privacy and anti-privacy. In many ways, they're ahead of the US - you can opt out of more telemetry, more advertising, more tracking. Good. But then the encryption stuff - bad.

Informed consent laws - good. Laws about third-party tracking - good. So it's some good, some bad.

But, on the topic of encryption, it's not like the US is pure here either.

Post reply on HN