Live data from Hacker News

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

ellsberg.substack.com

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might not be pushing for it, but certainly your fellow conservative Christians are. The problem with moralistic thinking is that it's stupid and it blows up, and we've known this for hundreds of years. What you view as moral means fuck-all. I don't particularly care if you think something is degenerate, and in fact by using a term like degenerate I respect you less as a person. So when morals are used as the sole…

No, some of them are. More evangelicals than my crowd. Morality bears directly on what we consider to be a just society, so I don’t care if you don’t care. You’re broadening the scope beyond this particular issue, where I’m guessing I agree with you. It’s not virtuous to act right because the state makes you, but the question of what we require and preclude is defined by our moral frameworks at some level. I’m not su…

> Most adults I see are fat, thus gluttons, thus are committing a sin.

This is not how fatness works.

Some people are genetically predisposed to gaining weight easily. Some people are literally just hungrier and have a higher satiety threshold. This is why "just eat less" is horribly ineffective.

Diet and exercise help but are more Band-Aids than a true long-term fix. Many people gain MORE weight after a period of intense dieting and exercise than before. There's a saying that summarizes this conundrum well: "Nobody knows more about diets than fat people."

I am sure that you mean well, but please understand that this is a very complex topic.

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

#742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The EU is not a monolith. There are many people pushing in many different directions. Sometimes the result is good, sometimes less so.

After the pushing is done then the resulting regulations are a monolith

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

#743

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 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 websites shouldn’t want to shoulder the responsibility for it.

Sure. A government issued certificate that is required to get an IP and be able to navigate the internet. How does that f-+-ing sound?

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

#744
post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

> since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.

So should everyone under the age of 25 (roughly when your brain becomes fully developed) be prohibited from talking about any kind of medical treatment?

Also, how do you expect people to develop critical thinking skills if they’re never presented with challenging concepts or, you know, required to think critically about things?

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

#745

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.

It's an attempt to get a list of people for a future Gilead like government to prosecute. It's not about protecting children, it's a way to get a list of nonbelievers and sinners in the hopes they can set up their theocracy and punish the non-believers.

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

#747

I'm puzzled by this 33% thing. Can I just host two videos of wholesome AI slop for every porn shoot? Like, if Pornhub adds a Christian section they can continue as-is?

It's a foot in the door law, newer laws will only become more draconian. Slow frog boil tactics are not uncommon with fascists. Look what Orban is doing, setting up fascism one step at a time, rather than an overwhelming military coup type of takeover.

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

#748
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tor might be wildly popular in a few years.

Tor doesn't protect against traffic correlation last I checked. Mixnets/Nym are better for actual privacy. (I've not audited Nym, not an endorsement)

Tor over DAITA? Especially with multihop over multiple non-cooperating legislators.

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

#749
post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic. > 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? Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you…

[flagged]

> Infant circumcision is proof people don't actually give a fuck about informed consent. You can perform genital alteration surgery on all the baby boys you want and nobody bats an eye.

Right, and my argument is "We should stop things like that" while your argument is "we should do more things like that".

Which sounds more reasonable to you?

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

#750

Who knew giving kids unlimited porn would have negative consequences.

any kid that has unlimited porn is a kid with poor parents, and they were gonna get into things much worse than porn anyway since parents aren't around and being negligent.
Post reply on HN