←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 3 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.702s | source
Show context
everdrive ◴[12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC] No.44544268[source]▶
Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.
replies(8): >>44544359 #>>44544369 #>>44544497 #>>44545175 #>>44545690 #>>44550491 #>>44550525 #>>44550534 #
fluidcruft ◴[12 Jul 25 21:08 UTC] No.44545175[source]▶
Age verification seems like a subset of human verification so if it gets rid of both bots and captchas then why not?
replies(1): >>44545618 #
Robotbeat ◴[12 Jul 25 22:09 UTC] No.44545618[source]▶
Pretty sure you can guess a few.
replies(1): >>44545632 #
fluidcruft ◴[12 Jul 25 22:10 UTC] No.44545632[source]▶
Guess a few what?
replies(1): >>44545789 #
layer8 ◴[12 Jul 25 22:38 UTC] No.44545789[source]▶
Reasons why not.
replies(1): >>44546353 #
fluidcruft ◴[13 Jul 25 00:12 UTC] No.44546353[source]▶
I still don't see any reason erasing bots and captchas from my online experience is bad. I hate bots and captchas. They add absolutely no value to my life. Conversely there is lots to be gained if imagine if something like X or reddit or whatever can anonymously verify that a user is a person and over 18 or 21 or 30 even (whatever) without having to directly handle identities. It's could be all the benefits of a bouncer checking for a pulse and valid ID without the privacy invasion. If done correctly it can also make fraud more difficult.
replies(2): >>44547402 #>>44547936 #
1. sigwinch ◴[13 Jul 25 04:05 UTC] No.44547402[source]▶
The article concludes that age verification must repeat every 60 minutes. And when there’s doubt about safe harbor, better safe than sorry. There’s a chance you’ll look back at captchas with relish.
replies(1): >>44550485 #
2. fluidcruft ◴[13 Jul 25 13:54 UTC] No.44550485[source]▶
The article starts as

> Just in time for the Fourth of July, last week the Supreme Court effectively nullified the First Amendment for any writers, like me, who include sex scenes in their writing, *intended for other adults*

There you have it. The author already is self-aware of the appropriateness of their creation for minors.

All that's needed is an easy way for the author to click "intended for adults" on whatever material they are creating and the entire article becomes nothing more than yapping into the wind.

Substack can easily build that as a feature for example. Reddit already has that with its "NSFW" flags (but does not currently verify accounts are actually 18yo+ adult humans).

Generally, it seems like silicon valley has become so entitled to taking the mile that the threat of taking back an inch brings out the hysterical Chicken Little fursona.

replies(1): >>44551710 #
3. Robotbeat ◴[13 Jul 25 16:51 UTC] No.44551710[source]▶
Substack and Reddit are huge websites. What you’re talking about kills self-hosting. Ironically, your idea for regulating this reinforces the VC-driven Silicon Valley capital-intensive model and kills independent, community driven low/no-capital websites.