←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 9 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 4.167s | 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 #
CPLX ◴[12 Jul 25 20:31 UTC] No.44544919[source]▶
The “freedom” of the early internet was bullshit, because it just meant “freedom to make money” and “freedom from having to deal with the consequences of your products on regular people.”

It most decidedly did not mean “freedom from corporate hegemony” which is how we are where we are now, where children are matched with pedophile groomers[1] and delivered endless advertisements for freelance porn practitioners for profit.

This version of freedom isn’t a free internet at all. That was just a PR pitch. And it wasn’t really a great idea to begin with, since it ends up leading to where we are now.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-06/instagram...

replies(2): >>44545006 #>>44545533 #
1. andrepd ◴[12 Jul 25 21:57 UTC] No.44545533[source]▶
> which is how we are where we are now, where children are matched with pedophile groomers[1] and delivered endless advertisements for freelance porn practitioners for profit.

Yes, which is why we are not in the early internet anymore and fully into surveillance capitalism, algorithmic social media.

replies(1): >>44545717 #
2. CPLX ◴[12 Jul 25 22:29 UTC] No.44545717[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44546871 #
3. convolvatron ◴[13 Jul 25 01:59 UTC] No.44546871[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44550430 #
4. CPLX ◴[13 Jul 25 13:46 UTC] No.44550430{3}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>44550919 #
5. soulofmischief ◴[13 Jul 25 15:02 UTC] No.44550919{4}[source]▶
Bullshit. This about enacting tboughtcrime and normalizing that two Americans cannot exchange whatever arbitrary information the current administration has decided is disallowed. It starts with porn and ends with any form of dissent. It's another step towards Newspeak.

I know they taught you about slippery slopes in elementary school social studies, and I assume you've educated yourself not only of the past but also with speculative material such as 1984. If not, I'm not sure why you feel qualified to make the claims you're making.

replies(1): >>44552463 #
6. CPLX ◴[13 Jul 25 18:39 UTC] No.44552463{5}[source]▶
Yeah that’s the libertarian techno utopian Silicon Valley point of view. It’s not that I don’t understand it, it’s that I think it’s pretty clear at this point it’s just a PR pitch for a group of sociopathic assholes who think they deserve to run the country.

Giving unlimited porn to kids is not “good, actually” and it was illegal before the internet and it’s a frustrating accident of history that nobody understood the implications of Section 230 at the time.

The internet is a core infrastructure commercial enterprise and what it produces should be subject to standard product regulations.

replies(1): >>44562243 #
7. soulofmischief ◴[14 Jul 25 16:46 UTC] No.44562243{6}[source]▶
I'm not a libertarian, and I don't live in SV. I'm also not a sociopathic asshole. Your argument is filled with ad hominem, then presents a ridiculous straw man, and never actually addresses the argument I made.

Would you like to try again?

replies(1): >>44565415 #
8. CPLX ◴[14 Jul 25 21:16 UTC] No.44565415{7}[source]▶
< This about enacting tboughtcrime and normalizing that two Americans cannot exchange whatever arbitrary information the current administration has decided is disallowed. It starts with porn and ends with any form of dissent. It's another step towards Newspeak.

No, it's not.

It's about regulating consumer product safety. The above argument is one employed to avoid that obvious fact. Nobody wants to decide what you can email another adult. We want to make these giant conglomerate tech companies accountable for the harm they cause to people. Giving massive amounts of unlimited porn to children is harmful and we shouldn't be OK with it.

I get that "oh think of the children" is often used disingenuously. So what? This isn't one of those times.

replies(1): >>44571562 #
9. soulofmischief ◴[15 Jul 25 14:33 UTC] No.44571562{8}[source]▶
You've doubled down on the straw man. Literally no one is talking about "giving massive amounts of unlimited porn to children" but you.

> So what? This isn't one of those times.

It 100% is, and you cannot see it because you yourself are caught in the fervor.

If you don't want to visit a website, don't visit it. If you don't want your child to visit a website, block it. But to force website operators to check IDs at the door through sketchy third party services so that other consenting individuals can use their services is just batshit insane and a gigantic slippery slope towards a State-run internet that criminalizes all non-sanctioned speech. You need to look past your little hang up and understand the bigger picture.