←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.209s | 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 #
nikanj ◴[12 Jul 25 19:20 UTC] No.44544369[source]▶
And honestly, with the advent of AI spam everywhere, I'd be quite happy to visit a version of the internet where everyone is a certified real person
replies(6): >>44544510 #>>44545802 #>>44545960 #>>44546641 #>>44547850 #>>44559850 #
baq ◴[12 Jul 25 19:37 UTC] No.44544510[source]▶
No idea why you’re getting downvoted when there’s a slow but unstoppable migration of everything into discord or other walled, somewhat LLM-proof gardens.
replies(2): >>44544682 #>>44547857 #
tines ◴[12 Jul 25 20:00 UTC] No.44544682[source]▶
Walled gardens are only LLM-proof until some AI company makes an offer for the data.
replies(1): >>44544988 #
nikanj ◴[12 Jul 25 20:40 UTC] No.44544988[source]▶
I don’t care about that. I care about the number of DMs I get from ”superhorni420” offering me her nudes

I don’t really see a future where Discord would let an AI company post the kind of 24/7 porn+crypto+scams you get in your email spam folder

replies(3): >>44545633 #>>44546200 #>>44547876 #
Aerroon ◴[12 Jul 25 22:11 UTC] No.44545633[source]▶
But that's already been happening in discord for years.
replies(1): >>44545774 #
layer8 ◴[12 Jul 25 22:37 UTC] No.44545774[source]▶
The parent’s point is that identity verification would stop that.
replies(1): >>44547864 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[13 Jul 25 05:58 UTC] No.44547864[source]▶
Where in this statement did people conclude that all websites require identification? Even if they did, you know the technocrats would just pay a few million to have the government look the other way. I don't see the upside here.