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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by chamomeal »

justahuman74 wrote: post #618

So which state's ISPs do we need to IP-ban?

IP banning Tennessee would be an interesting form of protest. Seems like these laws are usually super unpopular, but the general public doesn’t usually find out about them enough to get upset. If it doesn’t airtime on Fox News, my dad will literally never know it happened.

Putting up a big “Tennessee might try to put me in jail if you access this site” would get people’s attention.

Not that any business that gets a real amount of traffic would ever do such a thing. Nobody visits my shitty personal site lol

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

#642

Post by sigwinch »

fluidcruft wrote: post #514
layer8 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasons why not.

I still don't see any reason erasing bots and captchas from my online experience is bad. I hate bots and captchas. They add absolutely no value to my life. Conversely there is lots to be gained if imagine if something like X or reddit or whatever can anonymously verify that a user is a person and over 18 or 21 or 30 even (whatever) without having to directly handle identities. It's could be all the benefits of a boun…

The article concludes that age verification must repeat every 60 minutes. And when there’s doubt about safe harbor, better safe than sorry. There’s a chance you’ll look back at captchas with relish.

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

#643

Post by Tadpole9181 »

bawolff wrote: post #550
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis (based on packet size and timestamps) and there's almost no cure. Mullvad is the only VPN I know of that has a mode that normalizes all packets to the same size (going into the VPN) and sends fake packets that don't get sent as real traffic. But that's only obfuscation and, at low traffic or high bandwidth (videos) or with sufficient heuristics,…

> VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis Zero knowledge proofs are not vulnerable to traffic analysis the same way VPNs are.

It really depends on the implementation around it, how a user conducts themselves, and what data you can buy. While there is zero knowledge inside the proof, its use creates a side channel that reveals information.

For instance: The relying party server needs to call the auth server on novel users. Thats a new, unavoidable indicator!

How large are token batches and how long do they last? Will the implementation force them to wait a time period between redemption and use?

A bad implementation means the user IP will talk to the A server, then it will contact the RP server, who will contact the A server. Because this happens once per connection (or 60 minutes in this bill) and takes maybe a few hundred milliseconds. there's not going to be a huge number of candidates to have to sort through. And that's just the handshake.

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

#644

Post by bawolff »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #643
bawolff wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis Zero knowledge proofs are not vulnerable to traffic analysis the same way VPNs are.

It really depends on the implementation around it, how a user conducts themselves, and what data you can buy. While there is zero knowledge inside the proof, its use creates a side channel that reveals information. For instance: The relying party server needs to call the auth server on novel users. Thats a new, unavoidable indicator! How large are token batches and how long do they last? Will the implementation force…

> For instance: The relying party server needs to call the auth server on novel users. Thats a new, unavoidable indicator!

Not really. There is no requirement here for an auth server to neccesarily even exist.

That said, your broader point is correct, that the details matter a tremendous amount.

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

#645

Post by palmfacehn »

CPLX wrote: post #79
soulofmischief wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This goes against the very ethos of the early web. We should not be normalizing any form of this extreme moral overreach.

How did widespread adoption of the libertarian techno-utopianism of the early web work out for society as a whole?

The discussion will rehash the ideological issues around negative rights vs. positive rights.

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

#646

Post by ironmagma »

aaplok wrote: post #600
VBprogrammer wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.

> some group of middle age mothers With all due respect this comes across as mysoginic and ageist. It is also quite unnecessary to your point. Especially because middle aged women aren't the most powerful lobby in the US by any stretch.

That seems more like your interpretation of it; it’s merely an objective descriptor of the identity group in the same way that “straight white males” is.

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

#647

Post by sigwinch »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #287
alwa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Accessing my site after that would violate CFAA, right? Minors are not exempt from CFAA.

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

#648

Post by CalChris »

ttul wrote: post #33
smallmancontrov wrote: post #8

"Party of free speech," my ass.

The GOP under Trump has considerably changed from the GOP under Bush. There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. Perhaps a shift might be coming with the next economic downturn, which seems inevitable given the risk-off investment climate across most industries stemming from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable trade and economic policy. Things don’t look bad just yet, but it takes a while for…

The Bushes and Reagan were a little more genteel but that's it. Reagan even gave the wink wink nod nod speech about States' Rights at the Neshoba County Fair. The difference between them and Trump is sortorial.

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

#649

Post by comex »

ronsor wrote: post #130
kfajdsl wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an state AG tries to prosecute an entity that has no ties to the state other than content being passively accessible, that's probably another supreme court case if it doesn't get immediately decided in favor of the defendant in the lower courts. You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in. If Texas wants to block content from enti…

Isn't this covered by the "full faith and credit" clause? [0] [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/AL...

There are constitutional limits on when state courts can exercise jurisdiction over people not physically located in the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Inter...

> Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer.

> Courts have held that the greater the commercial nature and level of interactivity associated with the website, the more likely it is that the website operator has "purposefully avail[ed] itself" of the forum state's jurisdiction. [..] In contrast, a passive website that simply makes the information available to the user will be less likely to have a basis for personal jurisdiction.

(By the same principle, even an interactive website can probably avoid jurisdiction if they block IP addresses from the state, and don't encourage people to evade the block or anything like that.)

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

#650

Post by sigwinch »

Bender wrote: post #202
throw0101c wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Kind of unfortunate that PICS[1][2] and POWDER[3][4] never really took off: it allowed web sites to 'self-label' and then browsers (and proxies?) could use the metadata and built-in rules/filters to determine if the content should be displaye…

PICS and ICRA were not adopted by many due to complexity. RTA [1][2] is a more generic header that can be used on any adult site or site that allows user contributed content and is easier to implement. There needs to be a law that requires clients to look for this header if parental controls are enabled. Not perfect, nothing is. Teens will easily get around it but most small children will not which should be the spir…

> There needs to be a law that requires clients to look for this header if parental controls are enabled

Would that require MiTM at the network level? Or, is there a custom X.509 RTA that would tell clients not to accept the certificate?

Post reply on HN