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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by delusional »

al_borland wrote: post #269
ivan_gammel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your ID is effectively stored by the issuer indefinitely. What’s the difference between one and two entities? What’s the difference between two and a hundred?

The more people you give your personal information to, the less personal it becomes. The servers storing this information have been hacked in the past and it will happen again in the future. The fewer places your ID lives, the lower the risk of it leaking. Even if you don’t view the data as sensitive, it still associates a person with a website. Depending on the site, that can have negative ramifications in a person’…

Where I'm from we sorted this out with laws. It's not hard to figure out if one of your workers are associating with a union, but you're not allowed to treat them differently based on that. Laws make sure you don't, even though you technically could.

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

#492

Post by aspenmayer »

api wrote: post #441
lowkey_ wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry you're experiencing a bunch of downvotes over a counterpoint from your own experience. Even though I could predict what side HN would stand on any sort of internet freedom post, reading through all the reasonable yet greyed-out comments in this thread feels like HN's last dying breath as a place for genuine debate.

The replies here are disturbing for their lack of concern or even awareness of the fact that some parents have, you know, economic pressures? Like they have to work long hours or multiple jobs? Both parents have to work? This site can be really gross sometimes. I want to think it's just that the site skews young and people just don't know. I might have said similar things when I was 20.

It’s not gross to want parents to only parent their kids, and to leave the kids of other parents out of it. It’s your responsibility what your kid does on devices that you permit them to have. If you can’t control your kid when they’re not in your presence, or can’t trust them when they’re left to their own devices (pun intended), that’s an issue, but it isn’t a technological problem, but rather a parenting problem.

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

#493

Post by kennywinker »

bobalob wrote: post #450
kennywinker wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will

[flagged]

> Blocking puberty until eighteen is a harmful intervention in itself

For a trans kid, going thru the wrong puberty is harmful. The best thing would be hormones at puberty. But given issues around informed consent, puberty blockers are a valid compromise.

Calling them harmful without considering the harm of the alternative is not honest.

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

#494

Post by mixmastamyk »

poly2it wrote: post #256

A bit of a rant on the topic of digital supervision and age verification: Speaking personally, parent supervision was detrimental to my development as a child. I recently reached the liberation of legal adulthood. While my parents are often sweet, their intents did not always have the desired consequences given how they were enforced. Until I was around 15, I didn't have any computer I was able to freely tinker with,…

Obviously, there’s a difference between access to programming materials and the unethical majority of the internet.

I had access to the former at about 12 but no access to the internet until age ~23. Was about perfect.

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

#495

Post by delusional »

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.

> privacy from governments and cops

It is very much not clear to me that you should have privacy from governments or cops. Aren't the whole point of the government and cops that they are the institutions we have created to entrust with this access?

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

#496

Post by __turbobrew__ »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #150
antonymoose wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect a liquor store to check ID, why not a porn store?

Do booze shops in the US store peoples id's after they've flashed them (pun intended)?

Many bars and casinos store your ID forever.

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

#497

Post by rustcleaner »

_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…

Pot shops in legal states are compiling databases with their compliance CRM systems.

Pot industry needs to anonymize their customer records or stop using SaaS packaged solutions.

Now if China hacks Meadows or something, they have customer and purchase lists which may include security cleared personnel who can now be blackmailed.

If you run a pot shop, or an SaaS solution for them like Meadows, you really have to figure out how to divorce customer PII from purchases.

I am back to the black market in Oregon for this reason!

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

#498

Post by mlyle »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #469
conradev wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Aren't the regulations the problem here? If not for that nobody would be getting pressured to divulge this personal information to every shady app and website in the first place. Suppose I want to make a s…

I think most age verification ranges from silly to chilling to speech. But I don’t think we can somehow punt these problems to the quiz from the beginning of Leisure Suit Larry (which never stopped 10 year old me).

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

#499

Post by Diti »

wredcoll wrote: post #488
bobalob wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Many later detransition [Citation needed]

A simple web search could have given you the citation.

“The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.016).

The word “many” is misleading – it’s less than 1 %. It’s not nothing, but it’s low.

Post reply on HN