Live data from Hacker News

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

ellsberg.substack.com

451–460 of 1001 posts

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

#451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Let's blind all kids. Anyone who is opposed must believe that a non-zero chance of a child seeing two women have sex and eat turds is normal and healthy.

If it wasn't for your fine taste in ketchup I wouldn't have any qualms about writing you off as an imbecile.

I want to believe that your lack of discernment in one area betrays what suggests sound judgment in another. Unless the latter holds true only on occasions that satisfy your gullet.

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

#452
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What public libraries have porn? Or is it the pearl clutching where a novel with a same-sex kiss is smut? What about all of the graphic acts that happen in the Bible?

10 year old me definitely checked out the Clan of the Cavebear books and similar from my local library, no one cared.

My idea of a hot date was looking up dirty words in the unabridged dictionary.

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

#453
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills. Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.

I agree, but it can go too far as well. It's not healthy for children to be limited to knowing only their parents' and the government's opinions on serious topics. There has to be a balance between avoiding indoctrination and being aware of brain development schedule.

I somewhat agree, but exposure to global online content is hardly natural in terms of brain development.

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

#454
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…

> I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo.

I like this point. I feel like the tech community just figured politicians would forget about the issue. Instead of working together to develop a solution.

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

#456
post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.

That you have it backwards, because you do. Pornhub preemptively blocked states that were considering implementing ID rules, and states are not actively blocking Pornhub.

You don't seem to grasp the argument.

From above:

> These people will never actually ban pornography

> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay

You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.

The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.

The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.

Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.

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

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about client vs server, wouldn't it be even less wide-ranging, less costly to enforce, and more appropriately targeted if such mandates are one-time and on the client side - only on device manufacturers and OEM-shipped OS? Suppose new mass market devices are defaulted to parental controls on, until unlocked by an adult at point-of-sale or afterwards through a form of validation? The KYC of who unlocked it co…

Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders? > There should be a clear exemption threshold for low volume indie products, build your own PC, and open source self-install like Linux - since the purpose is to protect ignorant/apathetic consumers. Then everyone will just follow a YouTube tutorial to reinstall their operating system and bypass restricti…

This would actually be an effective way to teach kids about technology. If they learn enough to install their own OS, let them have their smut.

I’m hearing more and more how younger generations don’t have what people used to call basic computer skills, because everything just kind of works now. Putting up some road blocks that require research and hands on tinkering to solve, is an invaluable part of the learning process.

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

#459
post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion." Do you have any counter-evidence?

Yes: the cass review is very badly done and misinterprets the data available.

So you have no counter evidence?

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

#460
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Nope. Phyllis Schlafly's son Andrew (Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality) ran (still runs maybe?) a web site where among other things he "re-translates" the Bible so that e.g. Jesus's preaching is "Properly" translated to mean whatever it is suits his worldview.

Religion is about believing things you have no evidence for, that's its whole thing.

Post reply on HN