Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

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

    (ellsberg.substack.com)
    693 points macawfish | 11 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
    1. noosphr ◴[12 Jul 25 22:02 UTC] No.44545574[source]▶
    If you need an id to buy porn irl why wouldn't you need one to buy it online?
    replies(3): >>44545677 #>>44547915 #>>44550418 #
    2. breadwinner ◴[12 Jul 25 22:19 UTC] No.44545677[source]▶
    Because 'online' is the entire planet, including sellers in foreign countries. Would you like to have "digital borders" between countries, where data has to show some sort of passport to cross the border?
    replies(2): >>44545719 #>>44546189 #
    3. noosphr ◴[12 Jul 25 22:29 UTC] No.44545719[source]▶
    Again, if I want to import pron from Japan I need to not only prove I'm 18 to the border censors but make sure the pron is legal locally.

    Plenty of people have been arrested for importing things legal in Japan that are illegal in the West.

    Plenty of countries have laws on the books that make it a felony to even look at what's on the average Japanese store bookshelf while you're in Japan.

    Why should the laws be different just because you're moving electrons instead of atoms?

    replies(1): >>44564291 #
    4. delusional ◴[12 Jul 25 23:42 UTC] No.44546189[source]▶
    I mean if the alternative is complete lawlessness, then I suppose I do want digital borders. AMA.
    replies(3): >>44546370 #>>44546372 #>>44547140 #
    5. dangraper2 ◴[13 Jul 25 00:16 UTC] No.44546370{3}[source]▶
    Challenge accepted
    6. dangraper2 ◴[13 Jul 25 00:16 UTC] No.44546372{3}[source]▶
    How old are you?
    replies(1): >>44546376 #
    7. derbOac ◴[13 Jul 25 03:01 UTC] No.44547140{3}[source]▶
    This ruling kind of assumes the opposite in some ways, that the strictest law anywhere applies everywhere. It's not digital borders, it's no borders but where the most draconian authoritarian law supercedes everything.
    replies(1): >>44548176 #
    8. sigwinch ◴[13 Jul 25 06:09 UTC] No.44547915[source]▶
    The Federal harmful-to-minors laws don’t mandate you check IDs. Only some state laws do. You’re better off asking, “why would buying a magazine here in Michigan have anything to do with Rhode Island statutes?”
    9. delusional ◴[13 Jul 25 07:13 UTC] No.44548176{4}[source]▶
    How does it do that? It doesn't seem to mandate age verification when a user from Poland access a server in France. Only when one of the parties (either user or hoster) is within the jurisdiction.
    10. saturneria ◴[13 Jul 25 13:43 UTC] No.44550418[source]▶
    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.

    11. int_19h ◴[14 Jul 25 19:28 UTC] No.44564291{3}[source]▶
    They shouldn't, of course. Those existing regulations that you're referencing are equally bad for all the same reasons, and we should get rid of them.