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…
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
761–770 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#762Earlier 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 difference between one and two is being able to link two things I did. If you know who I am, that barely affects me. But if you can then cross-check whether I also went ballroom dancing, or went to a golf course, or went to a sexclub, or went to a ball-game. Then it starts affecting me.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#763That Tennessee law is particularly crazy: > (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body Naked bodies do not harm anyone . This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.
Interestingly (and I suppose fairly?) the law doesn't seem to make a distinction between male and female nipples. So an image of a shirtless man violates this just as much as an image of a shirtless woman.
Of course, that wording is deliberately vague for a reason. Judges, especially conservative ones, have often let states use wording like that to get away with female-toplessness bans, blue laws, religious imagery in government buildings, etc, since that kind of wording lets them avoid including discriminatory language in the law itself, therefore supposedly not violating the constitution.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#764Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the quote about their plans for transfolk: > Transgender people will see their existence denied and their rights stripped away under Project 2025. The authors equate "transgender ideology" to pornography, calling for it to be outlawed. While the far-right policy agenda cannot directly ban transgenderism, it aims to do so indirectly by labeling it as pornography, and then outlawing pornography itself - effectiv…
That's a piece on a third party site. Do you have an original source for the quote?
the search term 'transgender' appears 13 times largely in screeds against the things the authors don't like, these are followed by dot point actions to take to eliminate the mote in their neighbour's eye.
Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection.
* Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists;
Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended.
What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.
* Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.
* Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.
.. these are just short excerpts featuring the term. Reading through the FULL pdf (linked above) in those vicinities will provide further planned actions that will restrict rights w/out directly using the term.Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#765There was a NYT article a couple weeks ago about Chinese morality police doing mass arrests of erotica authors, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/world/asia/china-boys-lov... ( "Chinese Police Detain Dozens of Writers Over Gay Erotic Online Novels" ) [note article contains large images of erotica novel covers] But you'd *expect* that of the PRC; the US, wow, has it ever fallen fast and fallen hard.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#766Earlier 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.
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
Which society though? It used to be that political decisionmaking understood and accepted the existence of people not like the voting majority, and work to a common consensus… that's rather eroded now, and not just in the USA.
> Obviously, there should be limits.
Obviously? The only thing I'd accept as "obvious" in terms of speech limits is that which is actively violating people, e.g. CSAM, revenge porn and doxxing.
Raunchy stories? Porn with consenting participants? Fictional horror & gore? Those are not "obvious" limits…
…and then consider nude selfies exchanged consensually between 15yo teens. Is that CSAM?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#767Earlier quoted context omitted.
I come from a small town and know many conservative Christians. They are pushing for this. Like you said, it is easier to blame external sources than to accept you need to do better as parent.
Many of them are. I just don’t see any reason to say “I disagree with the conservative Christians pushing this” rather than “I disagree with the people who support this.” There are secular folks who also support such legislation. It hints at a generalized animus towards religion and likely in particular towards Christianity, kind of like Fox News boomers complaining Obama wouldn’t say “radical Islamic terrorism”.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#768Earlier quoted context omitted.
Age verification is easy. Age verification that leaves no record, is anonymous, and not circumvent-able is difficult. In the physical world it relies on the fallibility of human memory. No such luck with replicated databases.
Site generates random key Key and verification passed to verifier Verified list is published Site pulls list and checks its number has been verified Site doesn’t know who it is, and verifier doesn’t know which site was verified against
Otherwise, why wouldn’t I just try the last entries from that list?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#769Earlier 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?
What's the difference between a state agency issuing a document, and sending that document to 100 random websites. This is your question, correct?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#770Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is interesting, but I’d like to go a step further. I watched the first quarter of the video on where they go over how it works. The site requests data from your ID and they get that data. The site chooses which data it needs and if it will store it or it or not. Sites these days have a tendency to ask for more than what they need, and to store it for profiling purposes. The user can deny the request, but then ca…
Zero knowledge proofs are the solution. The website sends the verification function to the user device. The user device then returns a proof that it knows an input that the verification function accepts. The verification function should include a digital signature check. This is generally possible already with SSI based credentials, including standards created by W3C.