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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by techjamie »

xg15 wrote: post #809
kelnos wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flip it on its head. An age verification requirement might stop your 12-year-old from accessing a porn site headquartered or hosted in the US, but it will do nothing to keep your kid from finding porn on any of the thousands (tens of thousands? more?) of websites hosted in various other countries who don't care about this sort of thing. These sites are (or will be, if US-based sites become inaccessible) just as easy…

> The other is to accept that your kids will sometimes see things that you don't want them to see. That's how the world has always worked, and will continue to always work. Be there for them to provide context and support when they run across these things by accident and are confused or upset, and punish when they seek it out against the rules and boundaries you've set for them. You know... be a parent, and parent th…

Well, yes. It's exactly like that for drugs too. You can take great time and care to vet every person your kid interacts with outside of school, or keep them monitored 24/7 all you want. But that doesn't stop someone from passing them a blunt in the restroom at school.

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

#822

Post by lpribis »

mdavid626 wrote: post #800
trynumber9 wrote: post #337

I'm genuinely curious. The parent buys the phone/laptop. And when little Timmy logs in to his phone the account should be in a family/group as a child account. What's with the obsession with actually verifying identity? Just make a web API available to determine if the current user is configured as a child account. Why isn't that enough to gate-keep access to adult content?

Timmy's friend in school has parents who have no idea about family/child accounts. They just give him a phone and let him do whatever he wants. Timmy's friend is really popular in school.

Timmy's friend has a big brother that lets him use his ID. There will always be ways to circumvent this. The only functional difference between a simple setting in the browser and requiring ID attestation is how much surveillance it allows the government to do.

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

#823

Post by chriscrisby »

EasyMark wrote: post #750
chriscrisby wrote: post #625

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.

If you can’t configure content filters and dns servers then what right do you have to be a parent.

You shouldn’t be a parent if you can’t enforce a mobile device policy better than an average Fortune 500 corporation.

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

#824

Post by Bender »

sigwinch wrote: post #725
rocqua wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put it in the parental controls feature of the browser. Parents have to turn it on. Parents get to decide if their kids can watch porn. The government helps parents enforce the rules parents want.

I wonder if I can detect when parental controls are engaged like that. As of this ruling, all sites within striking distance of South Dakota must take “reasonable efforts” to age-verify, or be certain that no content could ever be politically harmful to the hypothetical minor.

Reasonable efforts in this case would be to send the RTA header. That's it. Done and dusted. If the client is able to browse your site that would mean that either parental controls are not enabled or they are enabled and your site was approve-listed in the client. This of course depends on changing the laws anywhere that require using a third party data-leakage site to verify ID.

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

#825

Post by saturneria »

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?

I don't even disagree with the spirit of what is being attempted here but it is ultimately pointless.

You aren't going to stop teenagers from watching porn if you have the internet.

All this would do is change the websites that teenagers are using.

It strikes me as just political grandstanding since the people putting forth this idea must know it is completely pointless.

Not to mention, a website is vastly different than a physical store.

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

#826

Post by CPLX »

convolvatron wrote: post #585
CPLX wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And the early internet lead directly here. Which is why going back makes about as much sense as picking up your baby and dropping it on the floor again.

All of those changes were choices. Like setting icann as a for profit entity at the behest of a corrupt libertarian faction. We didn’t have to destroy peer to peer communication. We didn’t have to cede email to google. None of those things were inevitable. Could have become anything really.

Yeah but we didn’t do it, because our political system is built around deference to large corporations and we’ve abandoned antitrust and taking on corporate power.

But here’s the thing. This effort to stop these corporations from delivering unlimited porn to children is a step in the right direction. Which is restraining the activity of these companies to hurt people.

Which is why calls for the old “free” internet are now, like then, bullshit.

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

#827

Post by mdavid626 »

lpribis wrote: post #822
mdavid626 wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timmy's friend in school has parents who have no idea about family/child accounts. They just give him a phone and let him do whatever he wants. Timmy's friend is really popular in school.

Timmy's friend has a big brother that lets him use his ID. There will always be ways to circumvent this. The only functional difference between a simple setting in the browser and requiring ID attestation is how much surveillance it allows the government to do.

According to this logic, why ban anything? There is always someone who can help you overcome the ban. So, let children buy alcohol and cigarettes, why not also drugs?

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

#828

Post by cFyrute »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #794
cFyrute wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Transgendered folks are people who identify as a gender other than how they were born. Drag queens are men who prefer to dress as women sometimes but who identify as men. Like, FBI director Edgar Hoover.

[flagged]

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

#829

Post by fluidcruft »

sigwinch wrote: post #642
fluidcruft wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article starts as

> Just in time for the Fourth of July, last week the Supreme Court effectively nullified the First Amendment for any writers, like me, who include sex scenes in their writing, *intended for other adults*

There you have it. The author already is self-aware of the appropriateness of their creation for minors.

All that's needed is an easy way for the author to click "intended for adults" on whatever material they are creating and the entire article becomes nothing more than yapping into the wind.

Substack can easily build that as a feature for example. Reddit already has that with its "NSFW" flags (but does not currently verify accounts are actually 18yo+ adult humans).

Generally, it seems like silicon valley has become so entitled to taking the mile that the threat of taking back an inch brings out the hysterical Chicken Little fursona.

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

#830

Post by mathiaspoint »

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.

Sharing/storing child porn is already illegal and punished far more harshly. So it's not like we've gone from zero to one. We've been censoring things people don't like for a little while now.
Post reply on HN