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

611–620 of 1001 posts

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

#611

Post by inkyoto »

cls59 wrote: post #547
tayo42 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

Many businesses in the US check ID at the door. If you are underage, they don't let you in. On the surface it seems reasonable to ask for an equivalent ID check online. But. The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it in a poorly secured back room that is regularly raided by criminal enterprises or outright sold by unscrupulous owners of the establishment. Similarly, they don't check in with the government in a…

> The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it […]

It simply means that it has not arrived in your vicinity yet. In Sydney (Australia, not Canada), whilst most venues are satisfied with quick visual checks of one's face / ID for anyone who looks young, some venues have equipped the bouncers with iPads that run an app dedicated to taking one's face picture and recording the government issued ID details (driver licence number, residential address and particulars – all of them! or no entry). I have had an argument with them a couple of times where the bouncers refused to say – and pretty aggressiveley so – how the PII is handled, who will own it after handing it over, and how to delete it. I simply walked away each and every time, and I no longer approach the venues that record the ID details.

Frankly, the erosion of privacy in western countries is reaching epic proportions, with incumbent governments making substantial efforts to get into one's colon against the citizen's wish.

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

#612

Post by derbOac »

delusional wrote: post #487
breadwinner wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 'online' is the entire planet, including sellers in foreign countries. Would you like to have "digital borders" between countries, where data has to show some sort of passport to cross the border?

I mean if the alternative is complete lawlessness, then I suppose I do want digital borders. AMA.

This ruling kind of assumes the opposite in some ways, that the strictest law anywhere applies everywhere. It's not digital borders, it's no borders but where the most draconian authoritarian law supercedes everything.

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

#613

Post by duskwuff »

DangitBobby wrote: post #604
tayo42 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

R rated movies for one.

Absolutely not "banned". Movie theaters customarily won't let children under 17 into R-rated films without a parent, but there's no law that I'm aware of enforcing that - it's purely an industry custom. And there's certainly no analogous restriction when purchasing an R-rated DVD, or watching one on a streaming service.

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

#614

Post by vlovich123 »

conradev wrote: post #158
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…

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…

For what it’s worth these mDL providers are the people already contracted to provide the services for the government to manage the IDs and the IT system for the DMV. They were part of the ISO standardization body for mDL. Not sure California’s choice pressured Apple so much as it being an international standard that had support from the governing bodies in Europe, UK, North America and Japan (met all of them there).

Apple wasn’t there when I was and even broader Google joined about 6 months after I left Google in 2015 (I was just proactive about seeing the standard coming) but the big players hopped on board later in the process.

We were all also acutely aware of the privacy implications and making sure the bodies would sign records of >18, >21 to avoid having to share too much info (pre ZKproofs being more widely accepted recognized).

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

#615

Post by roenxi »

conradev wrote: post #566
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but also because the law sets the standard, it can also provide a new one. If the people writing the law cared about privacy they wouldn't have passed that one, and anybody who does would be repealing it rather than trying to find the best shade of lipstick for the pig. > Which information is collected is made legible by the user agents This is the part you don't need a law in order to do because the user can choos…

I figured I’d get this response, but: I don’t see my primary care doctor selling my health data, due in part to data privacy laws like HIPAA. Consumer companies take COPPA seriously. You absolutely cannot control what companies do with data, so you want to prevent its collection in the first place – but you can penalize them when they do something wrong, which does influence their beyavior. The jury is still out on t…

> I don’t see my primary care doctor selling my health data

Without overstretching the metaphor, it is quite revealing - you wouldn't see your primary care doctor selling that information whether they are or aren't. You don't have an effective way of monitoring the situation. Nobody outside the hypothetical transaction does.

It is common for that sort of situation to go bad if the economics of selling the data make sense despite the risk of getting caught.

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

#616

Post by duskwuff »

627467 wrote: post #541
tayo42 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

I take you never been to alcohol/tobacco websites

I don't think I've ever seen one with an age gate stricter than "please enter your date of birth".

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

#617

Post by AngryData »

chgs wrote: post #134
soulofmischief wrote: post #22

[flagged]

If the Supreme Court agrees they are constitutional then they clearly are constitutional, unless you think the constitution doesn’t apply

Quiet frankly I don't give a shit what a judge says is constitutional when they are acting in direct opposition to the stated goals of the constitution and I don't think anybody else should either. I believe the Founding Fathers both expected and wanted people to stand up in defiance against legal rulings and laws that many find unjust, even to the point of violence after some time. The Constitution starts with "We the People", which means if the people don't agree then the judges are wrong and should be opposed in every aspect.

The US legal system has gone out of control and it is getting to the point where people need to defy the law as a matter of principle and fight for their rights. The preamble of the constitution is pretty clear in its general goals, and working against the people's will, restricting the peoples rights, committing what the people believe are injustices, and causing social turmoil among them, are all blatantly opposed.

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

#619

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #599
ndriscoll wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Why would I not default filter e.g. Iran or Chad or El Salvador or most of the world on my home network? I can always unblock a specific IP if needed, but chances are that will never happen. My kids aren't old enough for computers yet, but I'm mostly of the mindset that a whitelist or curated offline cache (at least for anything on the web) is the sanest approach for younger kids. Outside of .gov, .edu, a han…

You need to add Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, etc to that list to actually achieve what you set out to accomplish. Which then does more harm than what you’re trying to prevent. He’ll realistically the US doesn’t make the cut either.

Why? Concretely, what would I be trying to allow in Japan? Don't they mostly communicate in Japanese anyway? The US has things like local government, schools, businesses, clubs, organizations, etc. Because the US is where we live. That makes it inconvenient to default block the US. Australia has what that is relevant to us? I don't see any .au in my browser history. Or .jp. Or .ca. There is some ac.uk, granted, but that could probably be kept to a small whitelist. I highly doubt anyone would notice for years if ever if I blocked Japan or Australia. It's a near certainty that no one would notice if I blocked all non-English parts of the web.

Are US organizations hosting in Canada for some reason? They probably wouldn't go further than that for latency reasons.

There's the separate problem of foreign companies having US points of presence, but assuming these laws expand, I'd imagine that would eventually lead to liability for services like cloudflare providing the endpoint/hosting on US soil.

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

#620

Post by totallykvothe »

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…

You're correct, and all the arguments against it simply boil down to "but we can't guarantee a perfect solution so therefore we shouldn't even try".
Post reply on HN