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 | 12 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.87s | 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 #
    VBprogrammer ◴[12 Jul 25 21:26 UTC] No.44545322[source]▶
    The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.
    replies(10): >>44545586 #>>44545590 #>>44545647 #>>44546175 #>>44546345 #>>44546880 #>>44547031 #>>44547319 #>>44547627 #>>44548721 #
    cmilton ◴[12 Jul 25 22:13 UTC] No.44545647[source]▶
    While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
    replies(4): >>44545805 #>>44546491 #>>44548089 #>>44548622 #
    1. tayo42 ◴[13 Jul 25 00:41 UTC] No.44546491[source]▶
    What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.
    replies(3): >>44546542 #>>44546555 #>>44547071 #
    2. 627467 ◴[13 Jul 25 00:54 UTC] No.44546542[source]▶
    I take you never been to alcohol/tobacco websites
    replies(1): >>44547150 #
    3. cls59 ◴[13 Jul 25 00:57 UTC] No.44546555[source]▶
    Many businesses in the US check ID at the door. If you are underage, they don't let you in.

    On the surface it seems reasonable to ask for an equivalent ID check online.

    But. The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it in a poorly secured back room that is regularly raided by criminal enterprises or outright sold by unscrupulous owners of the establishment. Similarly, they don't check in with the government in a manner that leaves a record.

    I'm fine with an ID check, but I think it is also reasonable to demand the same level of privacy that one gets when visiting a bar, casino, burlesque club, or similar establishment.

    replies(2): >>44546870 #>>44547136 #
    4. charcircuit ◴[13 Jul 25 01:59 UTC] No.44546870[source]▶
    They just take a picture with a phone or tablet. The reason you don't see people using photocopiers because there are better options.
    replies(1): >>44546886 #
    5. cls59 ◴[13 Jul 25 02:03 UTC] No.44546886{3}[source]▶
    I've never encountered a bouncer taking pictures of an ID. They check it, using a flashlight if needed, and wave you in.
    6. DangitBobby ◴[13 Jul 25 02:42 UTC] No.44547071[source]▶
    R rated movies for one.
    replies(1): >>44547143 #
    7. inkyoto ◴[13 Jul 25 03:01 UTC] No.44547136[source]▶
    > The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it […]

    It simply means that it has not arrived in your vicinity yet. In Sydney (Australia, not Canada), whilst most venues are satisfied with quick visual checks of one's face / ID for anyone who looks young, some venues have equipped the bouncers with iPads that run an app dedicated to taking one's face picture and recording the government issued ID details (driver licence number, residential address and particulars – all of them! or no entry). I have had an argument with them a couple of times where the bouncers refused to say – and pretty aggressiveley so – how the PII is handled, who will own it after handing it over, and how to delete it. I simply walked away each and every time, and I no longer approach the venues that record the ID details.

    Frankly, the erosion of privacy in western countries is reaching epic proportions, with incumbent governments making substantial efforts to get into one's colon against the citizen's wish.

    8. duskwuff ◴[13 Jul 25 03:02 UTC] No.44547143[source]▶
    Absolutely not "banned". Movie theaters customarily won't let children under 17 into R-rated films without a parent, but there's no law that I'm aware of enforcing that - it's purely an industry custom. And there's certainly no analogous restriction when purchasing an R-rated DVD, or watching one on a streaming service.
    replies(2): >>44547275 #>>44547658 #
    9. duskwuff ◴[13 Jul 25 03:04 UTC] No.44547150[source]▶
    I don't think I've ever seen one with an age gate stricter than "please enter your date of birth".
    10. DangitBobby ◴[13 Jul 25 03:35 UTC] No.44547275{3}[source]▶
    Oh wild. Learn something new every day. I worked at a movie theater myself and totally thought it was a law that people under 18 had to be accompanied by a guardian by law.
    11. jasonfarnon ◴[13 Jul 25 04:59 UTC] No.44547658{3}[source]▶
    The very reason this isn't legally enforced is because industry self-regulated this way (to avoid legislation that would come with actual liability). If the Internet made any effort at self-regulation beyond "say, you're over 18, right?" perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation.
    replies(1): >>44570481 #
    12. cowboylowrez ◴[15 Jul 25 12:33 UTC] No.44570481{4}[source]▶
    logistics for age checks are much easier for a movie theater.