US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law

Its bullshit a kid can buy a vpn without an ID for 3$ and skip any restriction, and even without that 90% of international porn sites, so the law fixes nothing but opens a slippery slope, whats next a law saying US needs a "Great Firewall" to protect the children from international deviancy.

And it also just opens the possibility for centralized ID verification services being breached and tieing identities to their more personal vices, its only a matter of time till a ID services gets exploited and a bunch of peoples identities and the sites they use are exploited.

Kids don't go through the hoops to buy and install a VPN just to access porn. If they were not exposed to it in the first place, which is very easy without a VPN, then they wont have the interest to get one.

As someone who went through hoops to disable filtering back in the 90s when that was the solution, yes they do. VPNs are free and can be installed on a device in about 5 minutes.

> Kids don't go through the hoops to buy and install a VPN just to access porn.

When I hosted a Minecraft server, I routinely got DDoS'd by gradeschoolers. I have little doubt they could be tunneling thru a VPN in short order - because they did that too.

Many VPNs are free iOS apps that vacuum your data. They are consumer-level download-tap-tap easy.

So the Texas porn law also removes hormones and curiosity? Every kid who has ever used a search engine has typed in the word fuck to see what comes back. But instead of clicking on the first link of peoplefucking.com and stopping they'll just click on peoplefucking.fr. Then there will be demands that all websites now must be approved by the government to protect the children

Kids were using VPNs and proxies when I was in school in the 2000s to access Myspace, flash games and comics. There are free ones that are spyware + hijack your PC for use in a botnet.

These were "normie" kids, not future hackers.

Taking a step back from this case.

In general any legal argument of the form: People will break the law, so there is no point in the law, is bullshit. Imagine any law and you will see how ridiculous it is.

"Making stealing with guns is illegal, people will use facemasks and file gun identifiers" "Adding security features to money is pointless, counterfeiters can always " "Adding locks to doors is pointless, if an thief wants to they will picklock it or copy your key" "making alcohol illegal is pointless, kids can present fake ids or ask their parents..." murder illegal is pointless

kids will absolutely do that.

Not a good analogy because people don't inherently crave firearms as an inescapable aspect of the human condition. They do crave sex, food and, by most anthropological accounts, drugs. When we try to artificially restrict these innate desires we consistently see people reject those restrictions in large numbers, oftentimes leading them to fulfil those needs in worse ways than the ways that were limited. And only the most repressive regimes/social orders are able to (mostly) quell that perpetual rebellion, but those are not systems anyone I know would want to live under.

EDIT: And by comparison, most societies get along fine with very limited access to firearms. Only the most repressive manage to enforce bans on unpermitted forms of drugs or sex.

Hell: My fellow kids in class ~2008-2011 were using Ultrasurf to get to Facebook, powered by Falun Gong. I remember those days quite well, and the half-assed attempts by IT staff to keep us from running it or saving it to our network drives.

I just remembered my home IP address by heart to RDP back home. Another one of us hosted a free website somewhere with a spare copy of Ultrasurf to get around the filters in the first place.

We need to put these restrictions on device, and hard socially punish anyone who breaks the pact. Like, our kids get phones with parental control, they get the whitelisted approved stuff only on those.

If I give my kid a general purpose computer with unsupervised access, I better be on top of that, especially if your kid is over. It's dangerous.

We are the adults here, we have to control the children for their own good, and frankly for our own good too whether said children belong to us or not. And we sure can, and we have always done so without eliminating vice, we just agree to exclude the children and punish any adult who breaks this pact. If we can't even control the children, we must be the most incapable idiot generations of all human history.

We do not need to give children access to the internet. There will be nothing of value to children published that can't be whitelisted inside of a week, and the delay of a week won't matter.

Conversely, we cannot afford to allow a comprehensive internet censorship regime for the adult public. It's too important for civil society to survive that every adult have unrestricted read and publish rights with every other adult. Therefore, the only reasonable move is to kick the children off of it.

> Kids don't go through the hoops to buy and install a VPN just to access porn.

If someone made a list of all the things kids are willing to do just to access porn, it would blow your mind.

Have you ever been or met a kid?

> we have to control the children for their own good

as long it’s your own children. you don’t get to dictate what other’s kids cant see.

religious fundamentalists don’t get to say other kids can’t see a gay wedding. same thing in the other direction, i don’t get to say that other peoples kids can’t see a straight wedding. you won’t see me screaming “straight weddings are inappropriate propaganda for a child to see!”

it’s weird af to control what other peoples kids can or can’t see.