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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

const_cast wrote: post #238
tolerance wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It doesn't - rather, it attacks the preposition at it's source. Pornography is bad, supposedly, but is it actually? It seems to me we all moved on without actually answering that question. We know it's bad for moral reasons, but moral reasons are stupid and I don't trust them. But is it actually bad - like in the real world, with tangible effects, not made-up ones? I don't know, and it looks like you don't know, and…

Getting shot at school is far worse than seeing a vagina, but according to the people doing the censoring a movie featuring a vagina is a bigger problem than a violent random death.

As moral positions go, it's actually quite eccentric.

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

#322

Post by LocalH »

spacechild1 wrote: post #169

That Tennessee law is particularly crazy: > (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body Naked bodies do not harm anyone . This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.

Interestingly (and I suppose fairly?) the law doesn't seem to make a distinction between male and female nipples. So an image of a shirtless man violates this just as much as an image of a shirtless woman.

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

#324

Post by Aerroon »

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...

I bet that in practice, at scale, these zero knowledge proofs end up being a lot more than zero.

Not to mention that you're almost certainly going to have to tie this stuff to specific accounts that will then forever and ever keep your habits collected. One day somebody enterprising is going to add all that data together too.

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

#325

Post by Robotbeat »

fluidcruft wrote: post #257
everdrive wrote: post #46

Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.

Age verification seems like a subset of human verification so if it gets rid of both bots and captchas then why not?

Pretty sure you can guess a few.

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

#326

Post by tiahura »

stego-tech wrote: post #289
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 "po…

As an ambulance chaser, I can assure you that suing out of state defendants for out of state activity has become nearly impossible. See Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell (2017), Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017), Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District (2021), Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023)

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

#327

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

tolerance wrote: post #286
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Anything you experience may push you in a direction with some magnitude, but we tend to overestimate the magnitude and mispredict the direction because we’re worried about the wellbeing of kids. Think “violent video games create school schootings.” In reality, kids have to deal with a lot of real things in life that are hard, an abusive parent or bullies at school, but those realities are harder to deal with so we distract ourselves worrying about violent video games. At the end of the day, it’s a recording on a screen, which is very different from a traumatic reality because you can just turn it off.

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

#328

Post by h2zizzle »

watwut wrote: post #141
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…

I got us 4chan and 8chan. It got us mass shootings and endless "they are just trolling, they are just teenagers, they are just ironic" chorus constantly bad faith defending the far right.

4chan is not emblematic of the Internet Wild West. It was spawned by users ejected from a traditional forum, a scant half-year before Facebook was launched; it was, in fact, a sort of mirror to Facebook's response to that old internet, moot and Zuck being two sides of the same upper middle class white boy script kiddie coin.

And, as with Facebook, the main issue was the ways in which each platform perpetuated old social ills, not the ways in which they freed users.

Lastly, the tragedy of each is that it would have been entirely possible for ethical actors to takeover or fork each platform to scrub them of the ills and to promote the good. Bluesky is making a try of it vis a vis Twitter, and while my hopes aren't high that it will be an ultimate solution, I appreciate that there's finally been at least an attempt.

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

#329

Post by fluidcruft »

Robotbeat wrote: post #325
fluidcruft wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Age verification seems like a subset of human verification so if it gets rid of both bots and captchas then why not?

Pretty sure you can guess a few.

Guess a few what?

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

#330

Post by Aerroon »

nikanj wrote: post #223
tines wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But that's already been happening in discord for years.
Post reply on HN