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

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by jay_kyburz »

gxs wrote: post #24
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…

There was a thread on reddit asking the other day what about the modern world bothers you the most I actually considered this question and after thinking about it, despite everything going on, I think it boils down to lack of privacy as my biggest gripe in the modern world It’s such a tough concept to explain to the if you don’t have anything to hide crowd, but if someone wants to disappear, I don’t care if for good…

I don't feel as strongly about privacy because "community" is what holds civilisation together.

Its nice to have a little space, and to have your own thoughts and opinions, but not at the expense of civilisation.

People should not be able to use privacy to evade responsibility or debts.

We always need to balance freedoms with responsibility.

Final thought is that this is precisely why government and politics is not a joke and needs to be taken seriously. We need small transparent governments we can trust and that are a held accountable.

If you don't trust your government, you've got bigger problems than your privacy.

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

#282

Post by tolerance »

const_cast wrote: post #266
tolerance wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a feeling that this is going to turn into one of those exchanges where we capoeira around theory and definitions and what "real" is and what "real" isn't in a way I have to think that either you've lived a sheltered life, or are in denial or have some kind of resentment toward the disgusting, vile and immoral things that you've witnessed that were "harmful" to you (I'm not a therapist). Moral reasons are stupi…

What I mean by "real" is real-world, tangible. If I drive a car without a seatbelt, that has real-world effects. I can get ejected and die, as well as hurting other people. But pornography doesn't split my skull. It doesn't crush my fingers. It doesn't make me poorer. It doesn't make me sicker. It doesn't hurt me physically, or financially, or even socially.

I know, or at least I figured that's what you meant.

I'm not a proponent of the discipline per say, and maybe because of this, my impression that the entire field of psychology is meant to partially address the real-word, tangible effects of things that do not cause apparent physical harm is naive.

If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment.

I'm going to leave out a more accessible or agreeable example because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come up one on your own.

I don't mean to be condescending, but I want to assume that you're arguing in good faith.

Have you, or any one who you know, seen something disgusting, vile or immoral that didn't cause physical harm but had a negative consequence on how you feel about yourself or the world around you?

Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews?

I know, and I figure that you know too. "Good" and "bad" exist in quotations marks and only count among the people who don't need them to use them with each other.

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

#283

Post by istjohn »

const_cast wrote: post #251
archagon wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cancel Culture is actually just the free market, the invisible hand, at work. What is a boycott but cancel culture? The idea of the free market is that good behaviors and products emerge because consumers "vote" with their wallet. If a company has bad values I don't support then I don't shop there. Enough people do that and the company collapses. So, what remains is an economy where every company acts virtuously. The…

Interesting argument. But I think cancel culture often has more in common with a lynch mob than a boycott.

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

#285

Post by rstat1 »

lowkey_ wrote: post #265
rstat1 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this day and age lack of knowledge is no excuse. Especially when everyone who would have this particular "problem" has access to various search tools and video websites that would explain "solutions".

I feel like, to say that, you haven't tried helping many older adults — or even middle-aged adults — use technology. If my older family member was scammed by something online, and someone said "lack of knowledge is no excuse," I think they'd really be missing the mark. Or if they shouldn't reproduce because they aren't good with technology. It's a very HN take but it's one that lacks a lot of humanity.

>> I feel like, to say that, you haven't tried helping many older adults — or even middle-aged adults — use technology.

I have actually. And do so pretty regularly.

But the comment I was replying to was presumably not about older adults, and more so about younger parents of minor children, whom I wouldn't normally class as "older adults", and for the most part I would think know basic skills like using a search engine and/or Youtube (or some other video sharing app)

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

#286

Post by tolerance »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #270
tolerance wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I saw that when I was little and it was just gross; I’m fine lol. My generation was the one watching cartel executions at that same time and that’s probably worse.

Who is your generation and how do you think they turned out.

No, save it (don't save it, this is rhetorical), because apparently every generation is screwed up in their own way that begets the ills of the next.

And if we happen to be cohorts (which I suspect we may be), then I think we made out as worse as any.

And is it wrong to assume that there isn't any difference between either kinds of footage? That one goads the other in either direction?

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

#287

Post by blurbleblurble »

alwa wrote: post #23
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…

And we could call this way… zero-knowledge proof! :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof I bet we could even get a major phone OS vendor to support such a thing… https://blog.google/products/google-pay/google-wallet-age-id...

Yet then again how hard is it to just grab your parents' ids while they're not looking and add it to your phone wallet?

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

#288

Post by boroboro4 »

landl0rd wrote: post #255
const_cast wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might not be pushing for it, but certainly your fellow conservative Christians are. The problem with moralistic thinking is that it's stupid and it blows up, and we've known this for hundreds of years. What you view as moral means fuck-all. I don't particularly care if you think something is degenerate, and in fact by using a term like degenerate I respect you less as a person. So when morals are used as the sole…

No, some of them are. More evangelicals than my crowd. Morality bears directly on what we consider to be a just society, so I don’t care if you don’t care. You’re broadening the scope beyond this particular issue, where I’m guessing I agree with you. It’s not virtuous to act right because the state makes you, but the question of what we require and preclude is defined by our moral frameworks at some level. I’m not su…

> massively negative effects pornography has on mostly young men

Can you provide any source for this?

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

#289

Post by stego-tech »

ViktorRay wrote: post #196

This article is incorrect. The Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to obscene sexual material. It doesn’t apply to sex scenes within artistic works or sexual content in general. There’s a test used to determine whether sexual material is considered pornographic. It’s known as the “I know it when I see it” test. More info on this test here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it More specifically here…

The article is, in fact, correct.

Community standards vary by community, both physically and digitally. The community standards of a rural town in Utah or ChristianDating.net are likely to be wildly different than the community standards of a major city on the coastlines or PornHub users. This wrinkle is exactly why there's renewed efforts to define what obscenity legally is [1], so that it's inclusive of as much "porn" as possible.

Additionally, you're conveniently ignoring what the author spends most of their piece decrying: the fact that these laws permit "ambulance chasing" attorneys to sue across state lines. That's the real issue, especially given the fact that some state laws can allow civil action to lead to prison time for conviction. Even ignoring the potential outcomes however, these lawsuits are instantly bankrupting for a majority of Americans, and the laws so (intentionally) broadly written that even genuinely innocent parties are likely to fork over money to make it go away given the cost of mounting a defense.

Put simply: obscenity lacks a firm legal definition, the definition of porn is nebulous and variable from person to person, and these laws are written to maximize harm to a maximal population size. The intent is to criminalize as many undesirables as possible, and the current administration and political parties have been transparent that anyone not rich, white, straight, Christian, and cisgendered male are emphatically undesirable.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/167...

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

#290

Post by conradev »

al_borland wrote: post #264
conradev wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like this? https://webkit.org/blog/16993/news-from-wwdc25-web-technolog... It’s a W3C spec led by Okta, Apple and Google based on an ISO standard and it is being rolled out as we speak. This part other iOS applications that have registered themselves as an Identity Document Provider. Has some fun history: California went with an independent contractor for its mDL implementation, which ultimately pressured Ap…

This is interesting, but I’d like to go a step further. I watched the first quarter of the video on where they go over how it works. The site requests data from your ID and they get that data. The site chooses which data it needs and if it will store it or it or not. Sites these days have a tendency to ask for more than what they need, and to store it for profiling purposes. The user can deny the request, but then ca…

The spec is being implemented by Apple, who is sensitive to privacy issues.

The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated.

The spec spells out the complexity: some ID verification processes actually need a lot of info! But some, like an alcohol age check, do not. The spec can do both, but it’s hard to differentiate these technically. The spec does lay out what user agents should do to make it clear which information is going where.

A bad scenario would be designing an API that is too hobbled to replace the invasive “photo of an ID” companies, which this spec seeks to do.

I’d prefer an open web standard that can be abused (with user consent) to a closed App Store-only API or the status quo

Post reply on HN