Most active commenters
  • sunaookami(4)
  • quickthrowman(3)

←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 16 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.869s | source | bottom
Show context
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 18:53 UTC] No.44544145[source]▶
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 websites shouldn’t want to shoulder the responsibility for it.

It seems like this could work much like Apple Pay, just without the payment. A prompt comes up, I use some biometric authentication on my phone, and it sends a signal to the browser that I’m 18+. Apple has been adding state IDs into the Wallet, this seems like it could fall right in line. The same thing could be used for buying alcohol at U-Scan checkout.

People should also be able to set their browser/computer to auto-send this for single-user devices, where it is all transparent to the user. I don’t have kids and no one else’s uses my devices. Why should I need to jump through hoops?

replies(36): >>44544207 #>>44544209 #>>44544223 #>>44544253 #>>44544375 #>>44544403 #>>44544619 #>>44544667 #>>44544797 #>>44544809 #>>44544821 #>>44544865 #>>44544875 #>>44544926 #>>44545322 #>>44545574 #>>44545686 #>>44545750 #>>44545798 #>>44545986 #>>44546467 #>>44546488 #>>44546759 #>>44546827 #>>44547088 #>>44547591 #>>44547777 #>>44547788 #>>44547799 #>>44547881 #>>44548019 #>>44548400 #>>44548482 #>>44548740 #>>44549467 #>>44560104 #
soulofmischief ◴[12 Jul 25 19:02 UTC] No.44544223[source]▶
This goes against the very ethos of the early web. We should not be normalizing any form of this extreme moral overreach.
replies(5): >>44544365 #>>44544606 #>>44545656 #>>44547558 #>>44547806 #
CPLX ◴[12 Jul 25 19:20 UTC] No.44544365[source]▶
How did widespread adoption of the libertarian techno-utopianism of the early web work out for society as a whole?
replies(3): >>44544471 #>>44544493 #>>44547475 #
dmix ◴[12 Jul 25 19:32 UTC] No.44544471[source]▶
It existed only on the edges, usually in softer pragmatic forms, and stopped a lot of bad ideas as a pressure group.

Characterizing the entire development of software and the internet in 90s-2000s as based on libertarian techno-utopinanism is largely manufactured narrative though. One I keep seeing pop up more and more. Largely by people trying to push poorly though out authoritarian gov-controlled internet by spinning the present internet (and parenting) as a product of some ideological radicalism.

replies(2): >>44544573 #>>44544919 #
1. watwut ◴[12 Jul 25 19:46 UTC] No.44544573[source]▶
I got us 4chan and 8chan. It got us mass shootings and endless "they are just trolling, they are just teenagers, they are just ironic" chorus constantly bad faith defending the far right.
replies(8): >>44544673 #>>44545486 #>>44545523 #>>44545584 #>>44545594 #>>44545629 #>>44551191 #>>44553262 #
2. mindslight ◴[12 Jul 25 19:59 UTC] No.44544673[source]▶
So now that we've arrived at the far right, it's time to stop decentralized dissent and prevent the pendulum from swinging back? This seems like a terrible idea.

And personally I'd say mass shootings are primarily encouraged by corporate mass media (including social media) glorifying the events and the shooters, rather than anonymous message board speech.

replies(1): >>44545096 #
3. overfeed ◴[12 Jul 25 20:57 UTC] No.44545096[source]▶
"arrived" and "swinging back"? You sound like an optimist; the dark-enlightenment Neo-Reactionary folk behind this are only just getting started.
replies(1): >>44546752 #
4. soulofmischief ◴[12 Jul 25 21:49 UTC] No.44545486[source]▶
Society gave us mass shootings. 4chan and other anonymous boards gave us protected speech. We've had mass shootings long before 4chan and they didn't start kicking off until they reached a critical threshold of interest due to social media and the almighty algorithm, not 4chan. Conflating these things is either ignorant or dishonest.
5. andrepd ◴[12 Jul 25 21:55 UTC] No.44545523[source]▶
Lmao, if there's anything that powers up the far-right is precisely algorithmic social media, not uncensored old-school message boards.
6. tremon ◴[12 Jul 25 22:03 UTC] No.44545584[source]▶
Are you saying that the early web only existed in the USA? I did not witness a growth in mass shootings here in Europe from that time. Those things did not happen until Web 2.0.
7. hooverd ◴[12 Jul 25 22:05 UTC] No.44545594[source]▶
Twitter is worse than 4chan now, at least 4chan is moderated.
8. h2zizzle ◴[12 Jul 25 22:10 UTC] No.44545629[source]▶
4chan is not emblematic of the Internet Wild West. It was spawned by users ejected from a traditional forum, a scant half-year before Facebook was launched; it was, in fact, a sort of mirror to Facebook's response to that old internet, moot and Zuck being two sides of the same upper middle class white boy script kiddie coin.

And, as with Facebook, the main issue was the ways in which each platform perpetuated old social ills, not the ways in which they freed users.

Lastly, the tragedy of each is that it would have been entirely possible for ethical actors to takeover or fork each platform to scrub them of the ills and to promote the good. Bluesky is making a try of it vis a vis Twitter, and while my hopes aren't high that it will be an ultimate solution, I appreciate that there's finally been at least an attempt.

9. mindslight ◴[13 Jul 25 01:35 UTC] No.44546752{3}[source]▶
"Arrived" because any further and we're into the far reich. "Swinging back" because I have to be an optimist that as the blatant autocratic authoritarianism rises there will be mass pushback.

I do know how deep the sophomorically-justified rabbit hole goes, in that I've read a fair amount of dark enlightenment material. I actually credit Moldbug's writing for helping me go from defaulting to fundamentalist-axiomatic analysis (rightist) to leftist-constructive-qualitative analysis (leftist) - top down hierarchy is utterly incapable of responding to the complexity of the world, and only sounds so appealing post-facto when a singular coherent narrative has been written.

10. quickthrowman ◴[13 Jul 25 15:39 UTC] No.44551191[source]▶
4chan was started because posters in the Something Awful anime subforum could not stop posting underage child porn which was obviously against the rules.

To stop these disgusting freaks from polluting the SA forums with their child pornography and degeneracy, Richard ‘Lowtax’ Kyanka closed the anime subforum (ATDRW aka Anime Tentacle Death Rape Whorehouse) and moot started 4chan.

So yeah, 4chans early legacy is ‘a bunch of pedophiles were mad they couldn’t share their abuse images’ which later transitioned into a love of fascism. What a great place… NOT.

P.S. Adults who like anime are fundamentally broken, it’s children’s entertainment.

replies(1): >>44553217 #
11. sunaookami ◴[13 Jul 25 20:04 UTC] No.44553217[source]▶
this is excellent bait
replies(1): >>44561145 #
12. sunaookami ◴[13 Jul 25 20:10 UTC] No.44553262[source]▶
>It got us mass shootings

Americans will blame everything but their gun laws.

13. quickthrowman ◴[14 Jul 25 15:11 UTC] No.44561145{3}[source]▶
Thanks, I thought I deleted the last sentence but forgot to, oops ;)

The general facts are true, my opinion of anime fans is my own

replies(1): >>44565296 #
14. sunaookami ◴[14 Jul 25 21:06 UTC] No.44565296{4}[source]▶
No the facts are not true, your origin history of 4chan is completely wrong. Moot was a massive weeb who wanted his own western Futaba alternative.
replies(1): >>44566090 #
15. quickthrowman ◴[14 Jul 25 22:35 UTC] No.44566090{5}[source]▶
Both of us can be right, moot is a massive ween and I’m sure he wanted a 2ch clone in English but it didn’t happen until ATDRW was shut down in 2003. I was an SA forums member when it happened.
replies(1): >>44569519 #
16. sunaookami ◴[15 Jul 25 09:42 UTC] No.44569519{6}[source]▶
This has nothing to do with what you said before. If you really were a SA member at that time you would know the history.