Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online • Hacker News Board

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

#691

Post by frumplestlatz » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:01 AM UTC

xethos wrote: post #569

LexiMax wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transgender treatments The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though. This is "Will the American State and Federal government impose an increasingly stringent moral compass on the wider internet, over time" Which... the VISA-Mastercard duopoly, backed by American soft power and with an American moral compass, already rather proves that point for anyone that's ever tried to pay for erotica outside the mainstream

Let’s be clear about what you mean when you say “outside the mainstream”, because that innocuous turn of phrase is doing a lot of work to cover what you’re really saying.

Visa and MasterCard disallow content depicting CSA, rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, scatological erotica, torture, extreme sexual violence, and revenge porn.

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

#692

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:02 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#693

Post by realusername » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:03 AM UTC

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…

> can "just" enumerate every inappropriate site even if it employed a full-time staff who did nothing but add new sites to the list all day long.

That's also an argument against an id verification mechanism then, the list of sites to block who don't implement one will be infinite.

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

#694

Post by johnnyanmac » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:03 AM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #77

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.

I don’t agree, at least as far as legal obligation goes. The average voter is far more worried about porn and other explicit content and not so much about anything else.

Did you miss the recent years of some states trying to ban gay/trans books from libraries? Or even just books written by gay/trans authors? It's been part of their playbook for years to try and assosiate transgenderism with pornographic.

You are right, the average voter is not worried about any single enforcement outside of CSAM. The people who will exploit this are not just "your average voter".

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

#695

Post by frumplestlatz » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:03 AM UTC

I’m a porn abolitionist, and I still hate these laws. Requiring digital identification online is an incredibly chilling step. It is a direct assault on anonymity.

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

#696

Post by sigwinch » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:09 AM UTC

noosphr wrote: post #313

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…

If you need an id to buy porn irl why wouldn't you need one to buy it online?

The Federal harmful-to-minors laws don’t mandate you check IDs. Only some state laws do. You’re better off asking, “why would buying a magazine here in Michigan have anything to do with Rhode Island statutes?”

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

#697

Post by johnnyanmac » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:14 AM UTC

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…

Because you're choosing not to see the obvious downsides. Wasn't this community the ones worried last decade about tech companies havesting their data for profit?

But sure, let's explain the downsides:

1. this isn't an all encompasing law. It's only for sites that host adult content. You know what people will do... remove adult content.

2. As we see this year, rules are useless without enforcement. I'm sure X or Reddit or whatever large companies will strike deals and be exempt. This will only harm the little sites who get harassed by vested interests.

3. There's been campaigns to try and assossiate LGBT to pornography for a while now. This will delve beyond porn and be used to enforce yet more bigotry. This "think of the children" rationale is always their backdoor to stripping away freedoms, and I sure don't trust it this time.

4. On a moral level, I care more about retaining my pseudo anonymity than about worrying over bots. I'm not giving my ID.ME in order to interact on a games forum, for instance. The better way to address this (if these people actually cared about it) is to force companies to disclose with commenters are being operated via bots. Many websites have API's so that would eliminate many of them, even if it's not perfect.

5. This execution sounds awful. On a general principle, I do not want people sued over state laws that they do not reside in. Why should California need to comply with Floridian laws? This is why porn sites impacted simply block those state IP's. The Internet is more and more connected, so you can imagine the chaos is this is generalized more, instead of actually taking hold and making federal laws. This is half hearted.

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

#698

Post by johnnyanmac » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:16 AM UTC

hackyhacky wrote: post #346

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.

This doesn't sound so bad. I would much prefer to have discussions about politics, technology, or religion safe in the knowledge that I am not inadvertently communicating with a minor.

I don't care if they are 16 or 68, I discuss about topics, not necesarily with the person themself. the former can be insightful and the latter still be extremely close minded.

I also don't understand why the government should control who I can talk to in a digital space. Maybe start investigating the president's flight records if you suddenly care about children interacting with adults.

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

#699

Post by Tadpole9181 » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:19 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #644

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, that's my bad, I re-read the privacy pass protocol to brush up and it does use signing without requiring the RP to necessarily make another call to the original approver server. I also see there's been work on hidden witness ZKP, so the RP may not even know who approved a given token.

Very cool! Always happy to be proven wrong with cool tech!

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

#700

Post by eesmith » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 6:19 AM UTC

zajio1am wrote: post #671

eesmith wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I point out to self-described "classic liberals" that what they call "cancel culture" was instead described by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" as an essential component of liberty: "We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoi…

This is ignoring difference between individual distancing from such person and cancel culture campaigns, whose characteristic pattern is transitivity (boycotting third persons just because they do not participate themselves in boycott). Amplifying effect of such transitivity creates a social coercion in the form that Mill warned against in chapter 1. That is why he mentioned "though not to parade the avoidance" - to…

The "displeases us" you quoted is for "the part of a person's life which concerns only himself". For example, "No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk."

For actions "which concerns others" Mill writes:

"The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe. In the one case, he is an offender at our bar, and we are called on not only to sit in judgment on him, but, in one shape or another, to execute our own sentence: in the other case, it is not our part to inflict any suffering on him, except what may incidentally follow from our using the same liberty in the regulation of our own affairs, which we allow to him in his."