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?
You mean like this?
https://webkit.org/blog/16993/news-from-wwdc25-web-technolog...
It’s a W3C spec led by Okta, Apple and Google based on an ISO standard and it is being rolled out as we speak.
This part
other iOS applications that have registered themselves as an Identity Document Provider.
This is interesting, but I’d like to go a step further. I watched the first quarter of the video on where they go over how it works. The site requests data from your ID and they get that data. The site chooses which data it needs and if it will store it or it or not. Sites these days have a tendency to ask for more than what they need, and to store it for profiling purposes. The user can deny the request, but then can’t use the site. They are then left with a dilemma. Give up this personal information or not have access at all? Companies are betting on users giving up privacy in exchange for access.
What I’d like to see is for the site’s request to contain their access rules. Must be over 18, must be in country X, etc. Then on-device it checks my ID against that rule set, and simply returns a pass/fail result from those checks. This way the site would know if I’m allowed to be there, but they don’t get any specific or identifiable information about me. Maybe I’m 18, maybe I’m 56… they don’t know, they both simply send a pass. For a simple age check, a user’s exact birthday, name, address, etc are irrelevant, but I bet companies will get greedy and try to pull it anyway.
I see the monkey paw of the ID spec as leading to more companies seeking to get all our data, when they really don’t need it, and have shown they can’t be trusted with it.
I already see this with Apple Pay. When buying a digital item, some companies are awesome and simply take the payment with no other data. Others pull name, address, email, etc to make a payment when none of that is required.
Zero knowledge proofs are the solution.
The website sends the verification function to the user device. The user device then returns a proof that it knows an input that the verification function accepts.
The verification function should include a digital signature check.
This is generally possible already with SSI based credentials, including standards created by W3C.
Or attribute-based credentials. Basically, you're challenged and get a one-time, challenger-specific credential for exactly the requested attribute(s) from a credential provider. Eg. government (municipality, province, national) can become a credential provider.
Exactly. Yivi isn’t new having been renamed from IRMA (https://privacybydesign.foundation/en/). Nevertheless, adoption outside the Netherlands remains almost non-existent.
Except for the additional download requirement for a user, the friction is pretty low once it’s setup and you have created some attributes.
The project would benefit from a rebranding review, standardization, an enterprise-capable infrastructure to promote and support alternative service providers, and a review of clients. The current Yivi mobile app hasn’t changed much over the years and when I last used it I still needed a PIN instead Face ID.
The spec is being implemented by Apple, who is sensitive to privacy issues.
The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated.
The spec spells out the complexity: some ID verification processes actually need a lot of info! But some, like an alcohol age check, do not. The spec can do both, but it’s hard to differentiate these technically. The spec does lay out what user agents should do to make it clear which information is going where.
A bad scenario would be designing an API that is too hobbled to replace the invasive “photo of an ID” companies, which this spec seeks to do.
I’d prefer an open web standard that can be abused (with user consent) to a closed App Store-only API or the status quo
> The intent of the ISO spec is to allow you to request fine-grained data, like birth year only, but if you read the W3C standard, they explicitly call out privacy as a complex thing that maybe should be regulated.
Aren't the regulations the problem here? If not for that nobody would be getting pressured to divulge this personal information to every shady app and website in the first place.
Suppose I want to make a service that verifies your age by asking you questions about what life was like before 9/11. Can I do that? And if I can't, is the problem the standards, or the law?
Are you arguing that we should not regulate porn, alcohol, and cigarettes? Or that we shouldn’t have digital ways to do the regulating we’ve been doing for decades?
If the discussion was a question of whether to regulate or not, I’d see more where you’re coming from. But the discussion is about how to effectively respond to the enforcement of existing laws now against websites. Society has grown up and we’re not comfortable giving the internet a pass because digital identity is hard.
> Are you arguing that we should not regulate porn, alcohol, and cigarettes?
Most of the important regulations around these things have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Requiring bourbon not to contain methanol and adult performers to be tested for STDs aren't related to the internet.
And once we're talking about the internet, those things are in a different category because alcohol and cigarettes are physical objects. You can't download vodka from Russia.
Whereas if you want to stop kids from downloading porn from other parts of the world, the police state that would require is the thing wars have been fought against and righteously so. Not because of the porn but because of what it would take to actually make those laws effective, and what it would be used for as soon as it's in place.
But ineffective laws aren't worth having, because they're all costs with no benefits, not least because then people will keep trying to make them effective and the only means to do that is the police state.
> Society has grown up and we’re not comfortable giving the internet a pass because digital identity is hard.
I feel like this kind of language is designed to make people angry. As if you're not an adult if you can look at a trade off against privacy and free speech and say "that's not worth having" instead of implementing every creeping authoritarian proposal specifically because the last one didn't solve the problem.
>Society has grown up and we’re not comfortable giving the internet a pass because digital identity is hard.
I'm not comfortable giving society digital identity, because being a human and not abusing the primitive is even harder still. And we can't take it back once we've built it. It's just there for every wannabe despot to start building systems of oppression with. And there's an awful lot of them running around with the "best of intentions" to line the way to hell.
I took their post to mean the law steers implementations down a path which is not privacy- preserving.
Showing your driver's license to the store clerk didn't used to mean the store kept a copy.
I think most age verification ranges from silly to chilling to speech. But I don’t think we can somehow punt these problems to the quiz from the beginning of Leisure Suit Larry (which never stopped 10 year old me).
Requiring someone to have a government ID isn't anywhere near 100% effective because people will just borrow one from dad's wallet while he's not looking or use a device already signed in as someone else or the high school freshmen will get one from the high school seniors etc.
If we're admitting solutions that aren't 100% effective, why can't we admit solutions that aren't 100% effective but are much better at preserving privacy?
Well this time around the phone will ask the person presenting an ID for biometrics before allowing them to use Dad’s ID. We are improving. There is no perfect solution; we don’t live in a perfect world. Surely we shouldn’t give up and regulate nothing…
> Well this time around the phone will ask the person presenting an ID for biometrics before allowing them to use Dad’s ID. We are improving.
How is this improving? It's the most invasive proposal yet, serves to prohibit devices that are controlled by their owners and still doesn't actually work because a) there are still a zillion devices with security vulnerabilities and b) none of this applies to websites hosted in other jurisdictions, so you're not actually limiting the access of minors to anything, you're only inconveniencing anyone who does have servers in the US or interacts with any that are. Which is an extremely large number of people to trouble for a benefit that rounds to zero.
> Surely we shouldn’t give up and regulate nothing...
When we're in the category of speech, let's go with this option all the way to the wall.
Yes, they are! but also because the law sets the standard, it can also provide a new one. For example:
a) you are still legally required to age verify online alcohol purchases but
b) it’s illegal to use information collected for that purpose for other purposes and
c) Which information is collected is made legible by the user agents
Maybe something around only collecting minimal data, too.
Some of the first eager customers are banks with onerous KYC requirements – they want one click account creation! Good luck changing financial disclosure laws, though, my bank knows quite a bit about me.
> but also because the law sets the standard, it can also provide a new one.
If the people writing the law cared about privacy they wouldn't have passed that one, and anybody who does would be repealing it rather than trying to find the best shade of lipstick for the pig.
> Which information is collected is made legible by the user agents
This is the part you don't need a law in order to do because the user can choose their user agent. Or if they can't, you should stop talking about any of this and go fix your antitrust problem.
> you are still legally required to age verify online alcohol purchases but
By conceding this you've already lost, because:
> it’s illegal to use information collected for that purpose for other purposes
This is the part which is hopeless. If they have the information, you're already screwed, because once they have it it's almost impossible for you or the government to know what they're doing with it, which makes those laws nearly impossible to enforce. And on top of that, a large part of the problem is what criminals or governments do once there is a legally-mandated database of all of that stuff, and those entities aren't constrained by laws.
Which is why anybody who really cares about this knows that the only solution is to not have the law requires that data to be collected.
> Good luck changing financial disclosure laws, though
"Slippery slope is a fallacy", they said. "It's just one inch", they said.
I figured I’d get this response, but:
I don’t see my primary care doctor selling my health data, due in part to data privacy laws like HIPAA. Consumer companies take COPPA seriously.
You absolutely cannot control what companies do with data, so you want to prevent its collection in the first place – but you can penalize them when they do something wrong, which does influence their beyavior. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of the GDPR, but to say it had no effect would be an odd claim.
> I don’t see my primary care doctor selling my health data
Without overstretching the metaphor, it is quite revealing - you wouldn't see your primary care doctor selling that information whether they are or aren't. You don't have an effective way of monitoring the situation. Nobody outside the hypothetical transaction does.
It is common for that sort of situation to go bad if the economics of selling the data make sense despite the risk of getting caught.
> I don’t see my primary care doctor selling my health data, due in part to data privacy laws like HIPAA.
I'm glad I didn't get a diagnosis and treatment for ADHD, ADD, or autism.
The enemy is also government, especially with RFK's anti-autism trend, along with trawling through all medical records with those diagnoses.
Every doctor I've been to makes me sign a paper that says I acknowledge all my data will be shared with all of their partners.
That doesn't mean any of those other companies are buying or selling that data.
The healthcare provider uses an EHR. They might have some managed service provider managing their IT assets and their EHR deployment. Two companies they have BAAs with. That EHR company could be cloud hosted, another BAA. They probably rely on other tools and contractors which might have BAAs. Later on when they go to bill they exchange that billing data through billing analysis tools (another BAA) and then submit to a clearing house (another BAA). All of those companies probably have companies they work with that potentially need BAAs as well, if they work directly with that PHI data in the role of working on behalf of that healthcare provider.
One trip to the doctor could potentially involve dozens of companies you've never heard of that might have a business use case to handle your healthcare data in some way or fashion and none of them actually sold that data or mishandled it under HIPAA.
> I don’t see my primary care doctor selling my health data, due in part to data privacy laws like HIPAA. Consumer companies take COPPA seriously.
Insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank.
> The spec is being implemented by Apple, who is sensitive to privacy issues.
I generally agree with your points, but I wouldn't trust Apple, or any publicly traded company, to have any kind of ethics. Just because their incentive to make as much profit as possible, leads to them trying to differentiate themselves from other companies, and thus they choose to temporarily align with privacy concerns doesn't mean they will not compromise on them, if they see better profits elsewhere.
I rather have privacy enforcing regulations like the GDPR or policies that go even further, than relying on publicly traded companies to protect their users.
For what it’s worth these mDL providers are the people already contracted to provide the services for the government to manage the IDs and the IT system for the DMV. They were part of the ISO standardization body for mDL. Not sure California’s choice pressured Apple so much as it being an international standard that had support from the governing bodies in Europe, UK, North America and Japan (met all of them there).
Apple wasn’t there when I was and even broader Google joined about 6 months after I left Google in 2015 (I was just proactive about seeing the standard coming) but the big players hopped on board later in the process.
We were all also acutely aware of the privacy implications and making sure the bodies would sign records of >18, >21 to avoid having to share too much info (pre ZKproofs being more widely accepted recognized).
> Marcos Caceres (Apple Inc.) > Tim Cappalli (Okta) > Mohamed Amir Yosef (Google Inc.)
Don't forget: these are the upstanding members of society who brought the dystopia to you.
Personally i'd be much more excited about something like https://zkpassport.id/
[deleted]
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.
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.
The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.
You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
> transgender treatments
The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."
Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?
This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though. This is "Will the American State and Federal government impose an increasingly stringent moral compass on the wider internet, over time"
Which... the VISA-Mastercard duopoly, backed by American soft power and with an American moral compass, already rather proves that point for anyone that's ever tried to pay for erotica outside the mainstream
> This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though.
I asked because I wanted to get a sense on if he conflating the two by accident, or if it was an attempt to steer the conversation away from free speech concerns.
Let’s be clear about what you mean when you say “outside the mainstream”, because that innocuous turn of phrase is doing a lot of work to cover what you’re really saying.
Visa and MasterCard disallow content depicting CSA, rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, scatological erotica, torture, extreme sexual violence, and revenge porn.
Equivocating child sexual abuse with the dude drawing consentual fan-fic or furry porn feels disingenuous at best, and more like bad faith though.
Because you're not wrong, the mainstream is fairly narrow, but to say the credit card duopoly excludes only the most heinous and vile imagery that can only barely be covered under "artistic expression" isn't exactly an entirely accurate depiction of reality.
I believe that happens for other reasons though. No law is telling Visa/Mastercard to prohibit payments to furry artists. They have some risk model that says it’s not good business and additionally pressure from advertising partners to not have their logo near that stuff.
> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."
You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic.
> Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?
Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this?
Besides, my belief on this is irrelevant; the only transgender issue that has gotten pushback en-masse from the clear majority of people world wide has been transgender treatments on minors.
IOW, this (treatment for persons unable to give informed consent) is a very unpopular position.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I used to feel the same way about prisoners, but there are plenty of arguments that they’re not slaves. The one that convinced me was that you can’t buy a prisoner, for example. Ditto for children (most of the time).
The trouble about laws involving children is that you’re up against every parent who has a child. By default they’ll err on protection, because our biology says that’s the safest thing to do. But as you say, that’s not always the best approach.
Male circumcision is an interesting one. The correct thing to do isn’t to say "here’s an example of something screwed up" as a way to justify something else; instead, ban the screwed up thing.
Personally, I hope it’ll be banned one day. I once asked my dad whether I was circumcised. He laughed and said haven’t you looked? I still have no idea whether I am. Now I’d rather not know.
> The one that convinced me was that you can’t buy a prisoner, for example
So slavery has taken MANY forms throughout history - the form most people are familiar with is american chattel slavery “a form of slavery where individuals are treated as personal property and can be bought, sold, or owned indefinitely”. There are lots of other forms of slavery many that don’t including purchasing humans, and the US prison labour system is slavery beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Why beyond the shadow of a doubt? Because the 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
Also, since the US prison system allows prison labour to be sold to private corporations, you can actually buy a prisoner’s forced labour.
13th amendment explicitly permits slavery as a punishment for a crime. And, you can definitely buy time manufacturing with prison labor.
Now, you're probably confusing chattel slavery as the only form of slavery, of which you buy and sell humans as property. There are other types, now predominantly slavery by the state (as punishment of a crime).
As for children, it definitely looks like a slave-owner type arrangement.
If you decide you want to know I can provide a description to help you figure it out.
If you REALLY don't want to know, it might be best to remove this comment, in case somebody decides to grief you.
[flagged]
I have absolutely no clue about circumcision in the bible. But if it's in there WHY would it be, there's probably a reason that they figured out overtime and the benefits. There is an abundance of literature and well formed research to indicate the benefits of circumcision. It's not at all unlikely that people 1000s of years ago figured that out too, especially during a time when there were far fewer hygiene options.
The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.
If you want to cut off your foreskin, do it as an adult. Some other procedures to consider for additional health benefits:
- You can also decide to cauterize the nailbeds on your toes to get lifelong protection against ingrown toenails.
- You can preemptively put metal crowns over all your teeth to protect them from tooth decay - metals are stronger than enamel!
- You can also remove all your body hair with laser treatments, to get protection from ingrown hairs - those can get badly infected!
- You can also tattoo your blood type on your chest, like they did in the SS, to save precious time in case you need blood transfusion while unconscious.
You can do all of these things to yourself, as an adult with informed consent. But don't do it to infants.
Lobotomies were also once considered solid science, but our views change over time. That people did it millennia ago isn’t really a persuasive point.
Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis? (Sometimes it feels like the word "circumcision" is a nice way to sidestep the implications.)
It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
On the other hand, perhaps a higher cancer rate would be worth it. The question is, how much higher?
> Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis?
First,
> In medicine, an indication is a valid reason to use a certain test, medication, procedure, or surgery.
From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2128632/ ,
> What are the absolute medical indications for circumcision?
> Medical indications […] occur in 1.5% and 1% of boys respectively.
That is, the overwhelming majority (>98%) of circumcisions in the US are not done for medical reasons. As the article states,
> Nearly all circumcisions are carried out for cultural or religious reasons.
Lastly, this:
> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence.
Is an illogical argument for circumcision as it is being discussed here, at birth.
> It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
… the claim is absurd. There's no science to support it.
The argument as raised above stands: why is circumcision — done at birth and without the consent of the patient — permissible, but puberty blockers — done far closer to adulthood and with the consent of the patient — are impermissible?
If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers. It is proven to be beneficial to a person's quality of life if they suffer from gender dysphoria.
I'm not sure what my personal opinion is on the topic, since I'm principally against infant circumcision. But I have less problems with puberty blockers, since it can still be reversed once a person is old enough to give consent.
Not sure about them, but for me, that’s correct. Solid research should be the foundation we make decisions on.
I used to have a problem with that idea too, until someone pointed out that puberty is an irreversible process with major consequences. The fact that everyone goes through it is a bit irrelevant; if it was happening to someone over 18, puberty blockers wouldn’t even be controversial.
As a parent, what to do? I look at my 2yo daughter and wonder if I’ll have to support her in a decision like that one day, or go against her wishes just because she’s 11. If there’s research indicating that delaying puberty doesn’t have major long term harm, then I’m more likely to endorse puberty blockers.
I made an off hand comment here that has got a lot of great response while I slept. I do wonder though if I'd have mentioned a handful of other issues whether the trans one would still have been the one to stir most controversy.
The fact is trans people are a tiny minority who are abused for political gain. I don't have hard numbers but it's probably not an exaggeration to say that to grant or withhold puberty blockers is probably no more common than a smorgasbord of other agonising medical decisions you may have to make.
Personally I don't like the idea of puberty blockers but if my 7 year old decided tomorrow that she was a boy, and lived that as authentically as they were able for years, then I think long and hard about it.
> If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers.
That sword cuts both ways: if the reasoning for banning infant male circumcision is "they can always do it as an adult", then that's a perfectly good reason for doing it with puberty blockers too.
I've always been against infant circumcision. Why would I extend that exception to be broader? I'd rather narrow the number of things we can do to children, not expand them.
> "they can always do it as an adult", then that's a perfectly good reason for doing it with puberty blockers too.
You can't block puberty as an adult. Most people are already past puberty once they turn 18.
> You can't block puberty as an adult. Most people are already past puberty once they turn 18.
"You can always transition as an adult" is that other edge, not "you can always block puberty as an adult".
The outcome of transitioning after puberty versus before is meaningfully different. Not to mention the mental distress of going through puberty with gender dysphoria.
[deleted]
> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.
Interesting, I would like to see that evidence. Specially when compared with the vaccination against HPV. Because, as far as I'm aware, that's by far the best way to prevent cervical cancer.
The lower HPV incidence rate is due to the fact that the skin on a circumcised penis is thickened due to the constant abrasion. Basically your penis gets covered with a callus. This thicker skin provides an improved barrier compared to the thin and moist skin inside an intact foreskin. But a thicker skin merely lowers the HPV infection rate, as evidenced by plantar warts on people's feet, which are also caused by HPV.
Luckily, as you've said, we already have HPV vaccines, so maybe it's time to stop cutting off pieces from little boys' penises?
> Infant circumcision is proof people don't actually give a fuck about informed consent. You can perform genital alteration surgery on all the baby boys you want and nobody bats an eye.
Right, and my argument is "We should stop things like that" while your argument is "we should do more things like that".
Which sounds more reasonable to you?
> Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this?
Because the idea that the only acceptable gender norms a kid is allowed to be exposed to and express is the one tied to their genes is frankly a ridiculous concept.
There's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls. If you don't believe that harmless message should reach the ears of kids, then why? What is in that sort of message that you're afraid of?
> There's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls. If you don't believe that harmless message should reach the ears of kids, then why?
I fully agree there's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls
I think the idea that a boy wearing dresses and playing with dolls must automatically be trans is actually very harmful and I do oppose that message reaching anyone
> I think the idea that a boy wearing dresses and playing with dolls must automatically be trans is actually very harmful and I do oppose that message reaching anyone
Gender identity and gender expression is something that is very personal to the individual. It's not up to you, me, or anybody else to label them - boy, girl, non-binary, whatever.
So I'll ask you the same question. Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?
> Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?
Not at all
I just think that the clothes you choose to wear shouldn't have anything to do with gender identity
They may be related because it might relate to how you choose to express your gender
But the fact is that clothes are clothes, not genders
> Not at all
Then ultimately you and I agree on the main crux of this conversation, the part that actually matters.
> What is in that sort of message that you're afraid of?
Your line questioning is sort of revealing that this only points you are wishing to score. I have, after all, not taken a position on targeted messages at children (I only pointed out that there are still restrictions on messages targeted to children).
I have already clarified that the specific contentious "transgender issue" is "transgender treatment", and that the clear majority of people all over the world are opposed to that specific "transgender issue".
I have not taken any position on whether or not children should be targeted with messages across the spectrum, ranging from the extreme on one end "It's okay for boys to play with dolls", to the extreme on the other "You will be happier after castration".
The reason I have not taken any position on messages is because of the many times proponents use the former as examples of what the rules should allow while ignoring that the rule they are championing also allows the latter message.
My position on the messages that children are to hear will always depend on the specific message. This is because children (even some young adults to, TBH) are impressionable!
If I had adopted your method of arguing for/against a point, I would have asked "Why are you so afraid of having your access to children cut off?" but I did not. Since you appear to be arguing your point in bad faith, I'm just going to go ahead and ask it.
If you had any faith that your message was the correct one you wouldn't be on the internet arguing for access to other people's children.
Why are you so afraid of having the easily impressionable in society prevented from seeing your message? Are you really afraid that if you don't get to imprint them with your message at the correct age they might never buy it as an adult?
“There’s nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls” is true, but it’s a very dishonest summary of what the transgender movement advocates for.
A more honest example would be something like “children with a male anatomy might actually be girls, depending not on physical but rather on psychological characteristics (i.e. ‘gender identity’)”. That’s a completely different claim, and one that fewer people would agree with, so your post is more or less a motte and bailey.
My overarching question - the one that started this comment chain - explicitly mentioned gender expression and gender identity. It has been brought up by me several other times in this comment thread. I am not hiding what this discussion is ultimately about.
[dead]
[deleted]
Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available?
The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will
"Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. The core issue at hand is that absent puberty blockers, somewhere between 60-80% do not persist with a cross-sex gender identity after going through their natal puberty. Psychologists attempted to predict which patients would persist in a cross sex gender identity and which would not, but they were never able to do so.
When patients are given puberty blockers, desistence rates are miniscule, in the single digits. Proponents of hormonal intervention insist that this is proof that doctors are selecting kids that would persist in a cross sex gender absent blockers. But that's hard to reconcile with psychologists previous failures to predict persistence. While they're billed as giving "time to think", it's pretty much impossible to deny that blockers are causing patients who would have desisted in their cross sex gender identity if they went through their natal puberty.
It's not just conservative American States that are changing course on blockers for children: Finland, Sweden, the UK, Italy, Denmark, and Norway have all stopped prescription of blockers in children. Plenty of other countries never allowed it in the first place.
The effects of puberty prevent people who are trans from living as their gender identities. Why bother when you'll need $400k in surgery post-puberty just for a chance to maybe look your gender?
If you ask trans people, "it's too late to live as my gender" is a common sentiment. You even see it in the gay community, where gay/bi people who come to acceptance of their sexualities late in life, feel like it's "too late" to live with that identity, and choose to continue to live and identify as straight people.
Hence the option for puberty blockers.
Turns out trans people will opt to go through the puberty that matches their gender if the opportunity arises, just as more people come out gay/bi/etc at an earlier age now that the opportunity arose.
People can, and do, transition as adults. Natal puberty clearly does not prevent all people from transitioning. Effectively 100% of trans people prior to about 2010 transitioned as adults.
Same thing with gay people, as per your example. I'm sure some do remain closeted their entire lives. But plenty of them come out as gay later in life.
> Same thing with gay people, as per your example. I'm sure some do remain closeted their entire lives. But plenty of them come out as gay later in life.
Plenty do, but the ones that don't give credence to the idea that forced closeting as a teenager makes it harder to follow your heart later. And that's in a situation where it doesn't get more difficult to come out later (if you're not married). Transitioning pre- and post- puberty is very different with current medical technology, so a lot more people will get "stuck".
As per the linked study, the desisters tend to no longer experience gender dysphoria. It's not just that they don't transition later in life. The scenario you're describing - people struggling with gender dysphoria but reluctant to transition on account of having undergone natal puberty - does not describe the bulk of the sample.
I don;t see a linked study...
In the child comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44546443
I never said that they don't, just that the opportunities to do so diminish post-puberty and with age, and many people give up on the dream of being themselves.
> But plenty of them come out as gay later in life.
Some do, but statistics show that the majority don't. At some point it stops making sense to identify as a gay/bi person if you've been married for 20 years and have no intention of leaving. That ship has sailed, so to speak. The same thing happens with trans people for very practical and biological reasons post-puberty.
> Some do, but statistics show that the majority don't.
Well, yeah. That's because it literally was a passing phase that the child experienced. That's why there's so many studies (some of them linked in this thread) showing that if you simply defer the decision until the minor is a major , the majority of gender dysphoria desists.
IOW, once the child has actually matured a little, their identity confusion goes away.
Deferring is the path of least harm; is it any wonder then that most of the people in the world, including highly secular countries, go that route?
The statistics I am talking about are the rates of gay/bi identification by generation.
There's a reason there's nearly 10x as many gay identifying people in recent generations compared to past, and you can't generalize it as being a "phase". The true rates are likely the same, but people who identify that way dip off as you go back generations.
You notice the same pattern with left-handedness and those who identify as left-handed over time.
The majority of patients stop experiencing gender dysphoria. The analogy to a married person "stuck in the closet" is not correct: in that scenario this person is still same-sex attracted but suppresses that desire. In the case of ~80% of gender dysphoric youth, they stop desiring to be the cross-sex gender altogether. They are not refraining from transition on account of doubting their ability to pass after having gone through natal puberty.
> "Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers.
That is an extremely generous interpretation. I think you're giving way too much credit to the average person that uses that argument.
Also I really have to wonder how much of that desistance is giving up versus actually being satisfied.
What do you mean by "giving up"? These patients have the opportunity to transition later in life. Patients were followed up with for 10+ years, well past puberty and into adulthood. The minority that persisted transitioned as adults.
The initial puberty is never going to be undone. If they'd rather live with it now that it happened, then it's great that they're probably not undergoing heavy dysphoria but that doesn't mean it's zero or that this was the best outcome.
> The initial puberty is never going to be undone. If they'd rather live with it now that it happened, then it's great that they're probably not undergoing heavy dysphoria but that doesn't mean it's zero or that this was the best outcome.
Well there was never going to be a perfect solution, right? So a solution that results in the most number of satisfied adults is an okay goal.
Given the disparity in life outcomes between trans people and cis people, the idea that the desisters would have been better off transitioning is quite the bold speculation.
Seems like you’re saying “society treats trans people badly, so we should prevent people from transitioning”
Coulda said the same about homosexuality ~30 years ago. It’s a bad reason then, it’s a bad reason now.
How much can the disparity in life outcomes be attributed to a trans person needing to undergo a second puberty in a society where doing so is discriminated against?
I feel like as a society we put trans people in a situation where it is controversial for them to transition as children, but also controversial for them to transition as adults. (The notion of a man in a dress no longer exists if the man never had male puberty, but not only is it controversial for such a boy to never have male puberty, we villainize the now-man's attempts to become a woman!) But then we say that outcomes for trans people are bad so them staying in the closet is good. Which is weird, because the cause of the bad outcomes is that there is no stage of their life where trans people can transition noncontroversially.
Desisters are not "still in the closet". They have become comfortable in their cis gender and no longer want to transition. Many (~60% of the sample) live happily as same-sex attracted cis people.
And so how does all of this prove that it should be illegal to speak about transitioning anywhere kids might read? Because that is what is at stake with these rulings
It seems like you're referring to a specific study, could you link it?
A multitude of studies, not just one. This is the review covering the outcomes of gender dysphoric children who aren't given blockers:
> Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available?
We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)
The government, for good or bad, regulates all healthcare, and that government is guided by its voters.
The majority of voters don't see this as a bigger problem than the issue they are currently voting on.
> We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)
As someone else pointed out, the idea of gov deciding what our doctors can and cant give us is a VERY modern concept.
But your examples: arsnic & crack
1. Cocaine is legal for doctors to prescribe and use in specific circumstances. What is legally prohibited is recreational use. Most of the restrictions on use are due to the threat of addiction, not the threat of appropriate medical use.
2. Arsnic is similarly entirely legal for medical use. Restrictions are around putting it in FOOD because it’s POISON. Nobody is saying you can’t treat cancer with it, if it’s shown to be effective.
Your examples are not examples of the majority regulating medical care for individuals.
> We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)
That began in 1906; it's hardly something we've "always done".
Blocking puberty until eighteen is a harmful intervention in itself, but even worse than that is girls who think they're supposed to be boys are being given double mastectomies, with some victims of this medical malpractice being as young as twelve years old.
Many later detransition, but the damage is already done by that point. That states are now banning this as a form of child abuse, is a welcome move in the right direction.
Many? You mean less than 1%[1]?
> Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1% (IC <1%–<1%) and 1% (CI <1%–2%), respectively.
That's less than the regret rate for life saving surgeries lol
If you look at the studies examined, many of them are from the 90s and all are from before 2019. The rate of transition in minors has increased rapidly in the last 10 years, and it's not very convincing to see data about mostly adults and assume it's going to apply to this new situation.
There isn’t much data, because not many people (child or adult) medically transition. But if you want to follow the data we need to do what we were doing before all this moral panic about trans kids kicked in: cautiously allow kids to transition(1), and collect data about outcomes. It’s disingenuous to complain about bad data in one breath, while blocking any path that would create new data.
(1) by transition i mean socially transition and go on puberty blockers if they want them.
> Blocking puberty until eighteen is a harmful intervention in itself
For a trans kid, going thru the wrong puberty is harmful. The best thing would be hormones at puberty. But given issues around informed consent, puberty blockers are a valid compromise.
Calling them harmful without considering the harm of the alternative is not honest.
Puberty is a stage of natural maturation of the body. There is only one, as per your sex, and you can't go through the wrong one. The puberty of the opposite sex is not an option.
This conception of the "wrong puberty" as something that needs to be blocked is as absurd as all that "born in the wrong body" ideological nonsense.
Most importantly, children can't meaningfully consent to having their sexual function permanently damaged.
[deleted]
The way you experience puberty is (to some extent) a result of the hormones in your body. Generally the hormones in your body are a result of your sex, however, it is possible to stop your body from producing certain hormones, and replace them with different hormones. In this way, one can have a puberty more similar to a different sex than one’s own.
Why do you think you can’t experience the wrong one? Also, unless you are saying there is only one sex, how could there only be one puberty?
And yet the vast majority of "puberty blockers" are given to cis kids who experience precocious puberty.
Who are we to question God's natural order? If a 9 year old girl with precocious puberty is uncomfortable being oggled by old men, that's just fine because puberty can never be wrong.
Besides, she can't meaningfully consent to medically delaying puberty, anyway.
So they are making everything up for attention or what? Kinda like gays 30 years ago?
> Puberty is a stage of natural maturation of the body. There is only one, as per your sex, and you can't go through the wrong one.
This is ideological nonsense.
intersex people are real.
We're not talking about intersex people.
This is presupposing without evidence. The research does not support your statements:
https://apnews.com/article/uk-transgender-health-care-childr...
[flagged]
And who decides if a puberty is "wrong"? The child itself certainly isn't mature enough.
I think this question concedes that there is some possibility that one could experience an incorrect puberty.
Given the definition of maturity is being fully grown, this comes across as an inherently unhelpful thing to ask. If we say “only once someone is fully grown they are able to determine if they experienced the incorrect puberty” then this makes it impossible to help children who are going to experience the incorrect puberty. Unless we have some way to determine a child is trans without any input from them, there becomes no way to help them.
> Many later detransition
[Citation needed]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039393/
All the studies among gender dysphoric children who are not prescribed puberty blockers show desistence rates over 70%
There are studies that show very low desistence rates - many in the single digits. But those are studies among children that are given puberty blockers.
You're citing a paper the Alliance for Defending Freedom regularly uses[1] to support the conspiracy theory that doctors are "turning gay kids trans". The study itself uses criteria for gender dysphoria that's been outdated for decades.
Here's what more reliable studies from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the largest professional group of pediatricians in the country, say[2]:
> Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition
> We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. A total of 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary. Later cisgender identities were more common among youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; their retransitions often occurred before age 10 years.
[1] https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OCR-0143-141953/at...
[2] https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e20210...
> The study itself uses criteria for gender dysphoria that's been outdated for decades.
The study uses the DSM-III and DSM-IV criteria for gender incongruence disorder, or GID, now referred to as gender dysphoria. The sample ranges from 1989 to 2002 and those were the contemporary iterations of the DSM. The DSM-V wasn't published until 2013. At most the criteria is outdated by one decade, not "several decades". Furthermore, the author of the study would later write the criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-V. The criteria are not particularly different, and the author of the study I linked has stated in interviews that most of the sample would meet the criteria for gender dysphoria under the DSM-V (which, again, he wrote so this opinion should carry some weight). In short, the idea that if the psychologists had used the DSM-V the results would be substantially different is not likely.
And this isn't just one study that found low rates of persistence:
> In Green (47), the percentage of persisters was 2% (total n = 44; Mean age at follow-up, 19 years; range, 14–24); in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52), the percentage of persisters was 20.3% (total n = 59; Mean age at follow-up, 19.4 years; range, 16–28); and in Steensma et al. (51), the percentage of persisters was 29.1% (total n = 79; Mean age at follow-up, 16.1 years; range, 15–19). Across all studies, the percentage of persisters was 17.4% (total N = 235), with a range from 0 to 29.1%.3
Are all these other studies finding low rates of persistence also tainted in some way?
The study you linked is among a group that were treated with an affirming model of care, where cross sex gender identity is actively encouraged, and a sizeable chunk of the sample were put on puberty blockers. This comports with what I have written: when gender dysphoric children are met with an affirming model of care and given gender affirming care, very few of them desist in their cross-sex gender identity. When they given a neutral, observational model of care not not prescribed puberty blockers, the majority of them desist. The study you linked just reinforces the former but does nothing to disprove the latter.
Doctors denying someone's sexual orientation or gender identity is not "neutral", it's akin to attitudes and methods used in conversion therapy.
Look, if you want to debate your theory of contagious trans-ness, you should be open about that from the get-go.
Attempting to equate watchful waiting with conversion therapy is a bad faith attempt to discredit the evidence that without active affirmation, most gender dysphoria patients desist after going through natal puberty.
What are you going on about "contagious trans-ness"? Gender dysphoria isn't spread by a bacterial or viral infection. I have no idea what you mean by "contagious". The second sentence reads like a total non-sequitur.
A simple web search could have given you the citation.
“The Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria Study (1972–2015): Trends in Prevalence, Treatment, and Regrets” (DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.01.016).
The word “many” is misleading – it’s less than 1 %. It’s not nothing, but it’s low.
That ~1% figure is unlikely to reflect the full picture of regret. That paper defines regret very narrowly: only including the patients who made an appointment with their original medical team to discuss regret, and only if they regret surgical removal of their sex organs. Plus, a large number of their total cohort were lost to follow-up.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29463477/
This isn't the desistence rate of children, this is the regret rate of adults who transition.
Can I just point out the irony of this statement in the context of my comment up thread.
So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?
> So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?
You sound surprised, so maybe you really don't know this: this state of affairs is how it's always been, and is likely to continue well into the future.
The government regulates all medicines, all medical procedures, and all medical practices.
It's literally one of the many jobs of government.
But what if they ban something like robbery? Then the robbers won’t be able to rob things, thus depriving them of their right to choose robbery.
Government run did not always mean majority ruled. Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion. In today’s US, we’re trending toward enforcing minority opinions about e.g. vaccines.
> Government run did not always mean majority ruled.
Right.
> Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion.
Correct, but it was with the agreement of the majority of voters! IOW, the majority opinion still prevailed.
We are not talking about tyranny of the minority by the majority; your example is literally the majority agreeing that those specific minorities rights be granted to them.
TBH, the opposition that we are seeing is opposition to medical intervention on minors who by definition alone cannot give informed consent.
Stop fighting that battle and I guarantee that this entire "issue" turns into a nothing-burger.
There is no reason to argue for medical interventions on someone who is unable to consent.
Doctors intervene to operate on minors all the time. Their guardian and doctors can decide to do essentially anything. If the doctor and guardian feel that the blockers, while harmful, are outweighed by the risk of self harm even with therapy and other medication, then let the doctor do the doctoring, not the politicians. There are almost twice as many intersex people who literally have at least partial sets of both reproductive organs as there are people who identify as trans. Doctors have to make hard calls without knowing the future on a regular basis. They can handle this too.
> Doctors intervene to operate on minors all the time.
On objective metrics, certainly. Never on subjective metrics.
Kid got a broken leg? Sure, doctors can intervene, often without even parental involvement (Emergencies, for example).
Kid feels like they have a broken leg? The doctor that cuts up that kid without doing any scans and working simply off the kid's self-reported feelings is going to be out of practice very very quickly.
Hell, doctors won't even prescribe antibiotics based off a kid's self-reported feelings; they'll confirm with a number of objective metrics (presence/absence of mucous in mouth/lungs, body temperature, pulse, etc).
So, no, we don't allow doctors to perform any procedures on children with only self-reported feelings as "evidence"[1].
[1] With the exception being male genital mutilation at birth, which is something I've always been vocally against.
I'm going to assume you're asking in good faith, and the short answer is yes — this is already happening!
Before engaging in what could be a huge discussion here, I suggest you do some quick searching about legal risks of performing life-saving abortion procedures, gender-affirming care for prison inmates, and workplaces choosing whether the health insurance they provide employees covers gender-affirming care as starting points to learn about the sad state of affairs.
No more weirdos, no more creeps!
No more fucking filthy geeks!
No more neckbeards or incels!
All you guys just really smell!
Yaaay progress!
Those bans are leaky, and physical. They aren't censorship, and (almost?) Exclusively ban services or sale of goods to underage people. They are also costly to implement, and require a lot of state effort to enforce.
These digital checks, if done "right". Are cheap to implement, and hard to get around. They don't easily let adults allow a kid to do it anyway. And a government can trivially check if a whole swath of businesses is implementating it.
That last point makes it very easy for governments to use this for widespread ideological interventions. With very little option for others to push back, because few people are involved in enforcement.
> we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. […] a society decide […]
Which society though? It used to be that political decisionmaking understood and accepted the existence of people not like the voting majority, and work to a common consensus… that's rather eroded now, and not just in the USA.
> Obviously, there should be limits.
Obviously? The only thing I'd accept as "obvious" in terms of speech limits is that which is actively violating people, e.g. CSAM, revenge porn and doxxing.
Raunchy stories? Porn with consenting participants? Fictional horror & gore? Those are not "obvious" limits…
…and then consider nude selfies exchanged consensually between 15yo teens. Is that CSAM?
What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.
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.
They just take a picture with a phone or tablet. The reason you don't see people using photocopiers because there are better options.
I've never encountered a bouncer taking pictures of an ID. They check it, using a flashlight if needed, and wave you in.
> 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.
I take you never been to alcohol/tobacco websites
I don't think I've ever seen one with an age gate stricter than "please enter your date of birth".
R rated movies for one.
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.
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.
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.
The hilarious part is this only regulates American speakers. If you want to sell Americans porn and ignore the age gate, publish from abroad.
It's only hilarious until they criminalize even looking at such content.
How will you sell them porn when VISA and Mastercard ban you?
Sepa, pix, ideal, swish? Bitcoin? A debit card from a bank on the us west coast that has state laws forbidding them to comply with laws like Texas'? If your hosting, banking, and residence are in CA, OR, or WA, and there was no discernable intent to target residents of the other state, it seems pretty unlikely anything could happen to you. Just don't take any plane that might get emergency diverted to some other state.
Only for sites hosted in the US. They’ll still be able to access Russian content on the matter of course. The land of the free web.
roskomnadzor
> some group of middle age mothers
With all due respect this comes across as mysoginic and ageist. It is also quite unnecessary to your point. Especially because middle aged women aren't the most powerful lobby in the US by any stretch.
That seems more like your interpretation of it; it’s merely an objective descriptor of the identity group in the same way that “straight white males” is.
I did not mean that the words "middle age mothers" are mysoginic or ageist in themselves. I was referring to the singling out of this particular identity group within the context of OP's message.
I should have quoted a longer part of that message for better clarity. I incorrectly assumed that my full comment was enough to contextualise what I meant.
Anti-fallacitical?
[deleted]
For example, banning sites that criticize the religion of the mother.
The slope isn't slippery, it's paved with a Starbucks on the way. This process is outlined in detail in Project 2025 to get around 1A being used as a defense because the aim is to define anything as lgbt related as pornography.
The current administration has collected nearly all the pieces of Exodia to be able to legally criminalize homosexuality and transgenderism without ever writing a law that says those exact words and have it be held up as constitutional. I'd say it was clever if it wasn't awful.
[flagged]
Also, largely, the same group that supports child marriage.
This is a slippery slope towards democracy I tell you! Before you know it they'll be asking for representation.
Seriously, isn't this sort of par for the course? We've always regulated what minors can access on the internet. Facebook didnt even formally allow children on their site (I don't know if that's still the case). I think it's a much larger issue that we haven't been enforcing those rules, since we apparently think they are a good idea.
This goes against the very ethos of the early web. We should not be normalizing any form of this extreme moral overreach.
The early web died when everything went behind the walled gardens.
Ethos of the very early Internet. It was mid 90s when people started thinking the Internet was a great resource for kids, and various blacklists arrived for DNS and email and this cool Netscape web browser thing, and Internet providers were chosen on how much of the alt.* Usenet hierarchy they provided or which IRC servers were accessible. Way back when the Internet was academia, porn and piracy and the sysadmins could do little but roll their eyes when people talked about how great it would be when the schools would be able to give their students accounts and they could all hang out in #hottub and slap each other with trouts and other innocent things. ASR?
I would call this a "legal overreach". Laws have nothing to do with morals or morality.
Its also to little, to late- the smut is in the LLMs now and they can generate whatever the user wants - locally. So good luck censoring that.
Easy, now every site hosting LLMs weights requires age verification.
The how-to site describing llamafiles becomes an accomplice.
How did widespread adoption of the libertarian techno-utopianism of the early web work out for society as a whole?
not at all? because it didn't even get to a point where it could have worked out for society as a whole?
The discussion will rehash the ideological issues around negative rights vs. positive rights.
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.
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...
it depends on which early free internet you're talking about. mine strictly forbid commercial usage at all - and it was lovely.
> 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.
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.
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.
I got us 4chan and 8chan. It got us mass shootings and endless "they are just trolling, they are just teenagers, they are just ironic" chorus constantly bad faith defending the far right.
4chan is not emblematic of the Internet Wild West. It was spawned by users ejected from a traditional forum, a scant half-year before Facebook was launched; it was, in fact, a sort of mirror to Facebook's response to that old internet, moot and Zuck being two sides of the same upper middle class white boy script kiddie coin.
And, as with Facebook, the main issue was the ways in which each platform perpetuated old social ills, not the ways in which they freed users.
Lastly, the tragedy of each is that it would have been entirely possible for ethical actors to takeover or fork each platform to scrub them of the ills and to promote the good. Bluesky is making a try of it vis a vis Twitter, and while my hopes aren't high that it will be an ultimate solution, I appreciate that there's finally been at least an attempt.
Are you saying that the early web only existed in the USA? I did not witness a growth in mass shootings here in Europe from that time. Those things did not happen until Web 2.0.
Society gave us mass shootings. 4chan and other anonymous boards gave us protected speech. We've had mass shootings long before 4chan and they didn't start kicking off until they reached a critical threshold of interest due to social media and the almighty algorithm, not 4chan. Conflating these things is either ignorant or dishonest.
Twitter is worse than 4chan now, at least 4chan is moderated.
Lmao, if there's anything that powers up the far-right is precisely algorithmic social media, not uncensored old-school message boards.
So now that we've arrived at the far right, it's time to stop decentralized dissent and prevent the pendulum from swinging back? This seems like a terrible idea.
And personally I'd say mass shootings are primarily encouraged by corporate mass media (including social media) glorifying the events and the shooters, rather than anonymous message board speech.
"arrived" and "swinging back"? You sound like an optimist; the dark-enlightenment Neo-Reactionary folk behind this are only just getting started.
"Arrived" because any further and we're into the far reich. "Swinging back" because I have to be an optimist that as the blatant autocratic authoritarianism rises there will be mass pushback.
I do know how deep the sophomorically-justified rabbit hole goes, in that I've read a fair amount of dark enlightenment material. I actually credit Moldbug's writing for helping me go from defaulting to fundamentalist-axiomatic analysis (rightist) to leftist-constructive-qualitative analysis (leftist) - top down hierarchy is utterly incapable of responding to the complexity of the world, and only sounds so appealing post-facto when a singular coherent narrative has been written.
And we could call this way… zero-knowledge proof! :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
I bet we could even get a major phone OS vendor to support such a thing…
https://blog.google/products/google-pay/google-wallet-age-id...
I bet that in practice, at scale, these zero knowledge proofs end up being a lot more than zero.
Not to mention that you're almost certainly going to have to tie this stuff to specific accounts that will then forever and ever keep your habits collected. One day somebody enterprising is going to add all that data together too.
> I bet that in practice, at scale, these zero knowledge proofs end up being a lot more than zero.
Zero knowledge proof is not a marketing term, its a math term. Maybe sometimes they are implemented wrong, but if they are implemented correctly its pretty rock solid. Certainly more rock solid than much cryptography which rests on sketchy foundations.
VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis (based on packet size and timestamps) and there's almost no cure.
Mullvad is the only VPN I know of that has a mode that normalizes all packets to the same size (going into the VPN) and sends fake packets that don't get sent as real traffic. But that's only obfuscation and, at low traffic or high bandwidth (videos) or with sufficient heuristics, it can be beaten.
The US has basically zero regulation on selling this data. I can imagine a world where within a couple decades the US has one of the largest blackmail crisis ever seen, as foreign governments target civil workers. Or, I guess, at this point, the US government against the "undesirable" party within this administration.
> VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis
Zero knowledge proofs are not vulnerable to traffic analysis the same way VPNs are.
It really depends on the implementation around it, how a user conducts themselves, and what data you can buy. While there is zero knowledge inside the proof, its use creates a side channel that reveals information.
For instance: The relying party server needs to call the auth server on novel users. Thats a new, unavoidable indicator!
How large are token batches and how long do they last? Will the implementation force them to wait a time period between redemption and use?
A bad implementation means the user IP will talk to the A server, then it will contact the RP server, who will contact the A server. Because this happens once per connection (or 60 minutes in this bill) and takes maybe a few hundred milliseconds. there's not going to be a huge number of candidates to have to sort through. And that's just the handshake.
> For instance: The relying party server needs to call the auth server on novel users. Thats a new, unavoidable indicator!
Not really. There is no requirement here for an auth server to neccesarily even exist.
That said, your broader point is correct, that the details matter a tremendous amount.
Oh, that's my bad, I re-read the privacy pass protocol to brush up and it does use signing without requiring the RP to necessarily make another call to the original approver server. I also see there's been work on hidden witness ZKP, so the RP may not even know who approved a given token.
Very cool! Always happy to be proven wrong with cool tech!
> VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis (based on packet size and timestamps) and there's almost no cure.
All comms are subject to traffic analysis except surreptitious, covert channels (which can't be covert if the implementations are widely available).
Do we expect Apple to implement a special, privacy-preserving age proof for porn viewers? Apple hates porn, when it's on websites like Tumblr.
At the same time they seem pragmatic about putting their mark on standards. It seems to me like we’re at a confluence: a regulatory tipping point where there really is pressure to bring laws to bear on online harms affecting kids; and a socio-technological moment where “gotta distinguish kids from adults” can realistically happen separately from “…by handing over personal info directly to shady random counterparts.”
Individual smartphones with biometrics are these days a whole-of-society norm, technologists have developed a mature body of cryptographic work to assert ZKPs, the US population seem to have lost their aversion to centralized ID systems… and the periodic moral panic about the kids seems to be at a high tide.
In the same way that Apple don’t prevent, say, Safari from being used for prurient purposes, or Final Cut Pro from being used to edit naughty bits, I don’t see why they wouldn’t want an opinionated implementation as a concept develops of a generic “digital tool to assert your age, and only that.” Especially since Android is doing it and leaning into the privacy angle.
I expect Apple will implement a general privacy-preserving arbitrary attribute proof, with age proof just one of the things it could be used for, probably using something similar to the library that Google recently released [1].
Zero knowledge proof smart contract verification called by the site interested in your age. You provide your public key wallet with its government issued soul bound NFT of your identification.
This can be done, its not that crazy, it just requires a bunch of people to get their heads out of their sand in regards to tech and blockchain, which admittedly might be a harder problem.
——
Additonal thought- if you don’t understand what I’m saying or have a negative reaction just plug the comment + thread context into an LLM and see what it says / ask for a clearer explanation.
ZKP is all you need. The NFT or blockchain stuff is unnecessary can be discarded.
Yet then again how hard is it to just grab your parents' ids while they're not looking and add it to your phone wallet?
They can require a selfie to compare against, multiple documents, a video, etc. IMHO best bet is to consolidate the validation to a small set of reputable companies, delegate validation to them, then improve regulations around access. Eg non-reputable site needs to know you are 18 (etc) but not see your actual id if they can have a third party do it in a blind-to-them fashion.
Accessing my site after that would violate CFAA, right? Minors are not exempt from CFAA.
Gate it in the touch id secure enclave. Then only the biometrics of the adult can provide the proof that they are over 18.
I'm just saying that if age verification is done via a "smart card" then it shouldn't be hard to just add that to the phone.
Unless of course they're planning on making us go to some facility to ensure our phones get the digital components of the IDs get loaded into the secure enclave? Which sounds dystopian as heck given the scenes coming out of the US right now.
It would be preferable if the prover party that holds the credentials in this scenario weren't Google. If anything I'd prefer a government issued digital ID with some form of local-only cryptographic exchange where neither the government knows someone has verified at a particular site/service and the verifier doesn't get info about one's identity. Just some cryptographic proof that verifies an age ('just' is doing some heavy lifting).
In past HN comments this apparently exists IRL in Germany and/or Canada, where age can be proven via a smartphone without leaking one's identity to the verifier and without any communication back to the government.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Eh. So now I'm forced to have all my IDs stored at an advertising behemoth. Not really a great situation either.
You're practically forced to have a Google/Apple account and a google/apple smartphone to even exist in today's world.
I think the majority of people on HN are well aware of this. The big question is how to transfer this simple idea to the people in charge at governments.
I am never providing my ID to anyone who can store it indefinitely. I am an adult and have no problem showing it in a shop if required as it isn't stored. Unless it can be proven it wont be stored (i.e. the bytes are never sent from my laptop) I will not provide it.
Your ID is effectively stored by the issuer indefinitely. What’s the difference between one and two entities? What’s the difference between two and a hundred?
The more people you give your personal information to, the less personal it becomes.
The servers storing this information have been hacked in the past and it will happen again in the future. The fewer places your ID lives, the lower the risk of it leaking.
Even if you don’t view the data as sensitive, it still associates a person with a website. Depending on the site, that can have negative ramifications in a person’s life. This is especially true when certain websites get associated with various political leaning and when the data leaks, the people who happened to be registered (for whatever their reason) get attacked.
Where I'm from we sorted this out with laws. It's not hard to figure out if one of your workers are associating with a union, but you're not allowed to treat them differently based on that. Laws make sure you don't, even though you technically could.
The tricky part is proving you’re being treated differently and that’s the reason why. Trying to legislate human behavior at that level doesn’t seem to work well.
My company has rules against retaliation. Good luck proving that’s the reason you didn’t get promoted, or were left off of a project. People get left off projects and don’t get promoted all the time. Keeping your job because the company is legally obligated to sounds like an uncomfortable working environment.
The difference between one and two is being able to link two things I did. If you know who I am, that barely affects me. But if you can then cross-check whether I also went ballroom dancing, or went to a golf course, or went to a sexclub, or went to a ball-game. Then it starts affecting me.
Just don’t consent to sharing your data to third parties for marketing or research purposes. In civilized world there exist laws which give you this right. It is surely not the problem with ID verification or storage.
Giving your data to a website is the same as giving it to a stranger on the bus. Maybe closer to going to a seedy part of town and giving your ID to random criminal and hoping they don't do anything unscrupulous.
What's the difference between a state agency issuing a document, and sending that document to 100 random websites. This is your question, correct?
That’s a strange assumption. ID verification is part of entering the contractual relationship in many parts of this world, it’s absolutely normal thing. You don’t show your ID to random sites, only to those where you want to become a customer. If you don’t want to sign the contract, you don’t show your ID. I don’t know how many places have a copy of my passport (many hotels, for sure) and I don’t care as long as they are compliant with the laws. Tracking via ID is economically much less effective, since most websites won’t require ID verification anyway, so the biggest concern should be identity theft - but there having a copy of your ID is rarely enough in countries with developed government ID infrastructure. E.g. in Germany you must present original ID to open a bank account or change your residence address. In countries with digital IDs and government services identity theft often goes via easier routes by hijacking digital ID accounts.
> 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?
Kind of unfortunate that PICS[1][2] and POWDER[3][4] never really took off: it allowed web sites to 'self-label' and then browsers (and proxies?) could use the metadata and built-in rules/filters to determine if the content should be displayed.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_for_Internet_Content_...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Web_Description_R...
PICS and ICRA were not adopted by many due to complexity. RTA [1][2] is a more generic header that can be used on any adult site or site that allows user contributed content and is easier to implement. There needs to be a law that requires clients to look for this header if parental controls are enabled. Not perfect, nothing is. Teens will easily get around it but most small children will not which should be the spirit of the ID verification movement. It's better than what we have today. The centralized ID verification sites will push many small sites to Tor and bigger sites to island nations and tax evasion in my opinion. More browsers are natively supporting .onion domains.
Congress critters should be opposed to the centralized ID verification systems as their browsing habbits will be exposed to the world when those sites ooopsie dooopsie "leak" the data or just openly sell it or an employee turns that data into a summarized online spreadsheet of who is into what. The kickbacks and lobbying they may be potentially receiving will not be worth it.
[1] - https://www.rtalabel.org/index.php?content=howtofaq#single
[2] - https://www.shodan.io/search?query=RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-R... [dont follow the links, NSFW]
> There needs to be a law that requires clients to look for this header if parental controls are enabled
Would that require MiTM at the network level? Or, is there a custom X.509 RTA that would tell clients not to accept the certificate?
Put it in the parental controls feature of the browser. Parents have to turn it on. Parents get to decide if their kids can watch porn. The government helps parents enforce the rules parents want.
I wonder if I can detect when parental controls are engaged like that.
As of this ruling, all sites within striking distance of South Dakota must take “reasonable efforts” to age-verify, or be certain that no content could ever be politically harmful to the hypothetical minor.
By a similar argument, why should stores check id's when selling alcohol or cigarettes? Raising kids is not their job either.
The answer is because we live in a society. Society is about families, not just adults. Sure, raising kids is primarily the job of the parents, but everyone helps. Sometimes that results in a bit of inconvenience for businesses.
Excluding kids from businesses that are adult-only isn't very kid-friendly, but it's the bare minimum when there are children around.
The issue is that currently, adding restrictions to what minors can do is expensive, both economically, and politically. It requires the cooperation of a lot of non-government appointed people, and many of them could (locally) sabotage the restrictions.
This limits the restrictions to those with incredibly broad support. Keeping a lot of agency with families on how to raise their children.
Digital age verification, if implemented well, is easy to enact, and hard to sabotage without being noticed. That enables restrictions that 49% of people disagree with. Heck, it enables restrictions that 49% of Congress disagrees with. That could be 60% of people disagreeing.
And educating the kids should be, and always has been a collective effort. Even in pre-industrial societies it was true. In the modern world it should be doubly true. I think most people would agree that we need public schools, even though some of them disagree with how sex ed and evolution were taught there.
It’s not the material cigarettes or alcohol that are the problem, it’s lying to get them. Same is true for sins like gambling and explicit romance novels.
The enforcement here is quite twisted: it attracts greedy litigants. Lying is bad, but greed is a mortal sin.
The irony here being that the same people who want this are the ones screaming from the rooftops about the government indoctrinating their kids.
*Also, I can’t wait for the first lawsuit over a breastfeeding page, because you know it’s coming.
> 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.
Sure. A government issued certificate that is required to get an IP and be able to navigate the internet. How does that f-+-ing sound?
> Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID?
They won't have to, most websites will use 3rd party age verification. This is basically what Doordash and Uber Eats use to verify your age before delivering alcohol or THC to your apartment.
Rife for abuse? Absolutely. Will these databases get leaked and increase the chances of your identity getting stolen? Yes. But isn't a small increase to an already-existing problem.
Those drivers check my ID at the door.
The pre-red-tape internet was glorious. Only way to get that back is to decentralize everything.
The actual point of these laws isn't to stop minors from viewing the material, it's to stop sites from hosting the material entirely. They're using "protect the kids from obscene content" as a wedge to get popular support. Acting like some technical solution to make authenticating as an adult more user-friendly would make the politicians who want this implemented happy is disingenuous. Let's take a look at how Tennessee has legislated their ID check should be implemented:
- ID must be verified either by matching a photo of the user to their photo ID, or by processing private transactional data (i.e. a credit card transaction).
- The user must verify their ID at the start of the session, and every hour the session is active.
- Historical anonymized ID verification data must be retained for at least 7 years.
- Anyone running a site that's viewable in Tennessee without the above ID verification rules is committing a class C felony, regardless of what state they reside in or host their site in.
This is clearly an attempt to stop any content they label as "obscene" (using a very broad definition of "obscenity") from being viewable at all in Tennessee. It's a completely unreasonable set of hoops to jump through that solely exists as a fig leaf because they know that making a law banning the content entirely would be ruled unconstitutional.
Thinking about client vs server, wouldn't it be even less wide-ranging, less costly to enforce, and more appropriately targeted if such mandates are one-time and on the client side - only on device manufacturers and OEM-shipped OS? Suppose new mass market devices are defaulted to parental controls on, until unlocked by an adult at point-of-sale or afterwards through a form of validation? The KYC of who unlocked it could be anonymized or the PII-proving side of the log if it needs keeping could be on-device only (high bar for criminal investigations). There should be a clear exemption threshold for low volume indie products, build your own PC, and open source self-install like Linux - since the purpose is to protect ignorant/apathetic consumers.
Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders?
> There should be a clear exemption threshold for low volume indie products, build your own PC, and open source self-install like Linux - since the purpose is to protect ignorant/apathetic consumers.
Then everyone will just follow a YouTube tutorial to reinstall their operating system and bypass restrictions. There were TikTok videos teaching kids how to steal cars, would there not be easy to follow instructions to bypass whatever client side filtering is implemented?
I get where you're coming from, but mandated client side filtering has been tried and has been ridiculed as a complete failure every time. Attempts have been made to market and provide filtering products to parents with little effect, with them either being easy to bypass or difficult to use.
It's actually kind of interesting to see the people who were fighting against client side filtering are now advocating for it, because server side restrictions are the next logical step.
> Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders?
This might be the least bad option. If it prevents server side enforcement, then settling on government enforcement of the commercial status quo might be less bad.
And what you describe is already the case for almost all devices anyway. The commercial incentives are there. And sadly, from a security PoV it is also quite valuable.
This would actually be an effective way to teach kids about technology. If they learn enough to install their own OS, let them have their smut.
I’m hearing more and more how younger generations don’t have what people used to call basic computer skills, because everything just kind of works now. Putting up some road blocks that require research and hands on tinkering to solve, is an invaluable part of the learning process.
I'm not sure bribing kids with smut to learn computer skills is good branding.
Everybody will get a chip implant for 18th birthday. Solved ;)
> there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18
No there doesn't. Why is the burden on ME (as a site owner) to do literally anything at all? The burden should be on parents to control their childrens' Internet use. Install a robust content blocker or don't give them Internet access.
Am I, a site owner, supposed to work with every asinine state and national system for making this attestation system work? How do I know the person behind the keyboard is actually the person whose age is being verified (and not one of their parents')? And as a citizen and consumer, why do I have to go out of my way to get some kind of digital identification that proves my age?
Why does this have to stop at porn? The logical next step is that legislators and parents will demand that sites will block folks from accessing blasphemous content. Or that you need to prove that you're not a resident of a particular state in order to access medical facts about abortion (because if you're looking it up, you obviously intend to get one or help someone get one)?
I don't want people to know how old I am or am not. Or where I live or don't live, or my sexual orientation, or anything else about me. I don't want to have to know any of these things about people who visit my website. And frankly, the idea that I am the one who is responsible for this and not the extreme minority of folks who want to keep certain content away from their kids or whatever is wild.
> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids.
I mean, they are. But I've never seen a similar reaction on HN or any forum when social media require age verification. Actually, I think most HN users would cheer if the government required Facebook to only allow users over 18.
I feel the general opinion about something on the internet basically comes down to this simple rule: !(do American Christians want that thing?), no matter what that thing is.
This would apply to Facebook just as any other site, and that’s obvious to the HN crowd.
It’s the ambulance chaser section of the article that explains the problem.
American Christians can and should rely on content blockers rather than lawsuits.
There was a thread on reddit asking the other day what about the modern world bothers you the most
I actually considered this question and after thinking about it, despite everything going on, I think it boils down to lack of privacy as my biggest gripe in the modern world
It’s such a tough concept to explain to the if you don’t have anything to hide crowd, but if someone wants to disappear, I don’t care if for good or bad reasons, they should be able to
If you don’t want the government on you, if you don’t want people you know to find you, if you just want to reinvent yourself, it doesn’t matter why - you should be able to do this. It just “feels” like an innate right. Normally I don’t like to argue using “vibes” as justification, but this to me is just part of my value system/morals which is inherently arbitrary to begin with
Encroaching on this privacy encroaches on a bunch of other rights, like free speech as you’ve mentioned
The fact that this is the case makes it even clearer to me that privacy is a basic fundamental primitive
Would love to hear alternative perspectives and other justifications for or against privacy
Either so few people appreciate the freedom that privacy confers or the perceived conveniences for trading it away are too compelling because of just how little society has done to protect privacy.
I only imagine it changing after a significant cultural change in which the economic value is not held as higher than the value of privacy, but would be delighted to be wrong in this regard.
The cultural change will only come after society bears a significant cost.
Privacy is required for the mental health of many people, perhaps everyone except the extroverted and naive. Anxiety and fear over people watched, caught, punished, especially innocently. Anxiety and fear over their lack of privacy being abused and harming them, such as currently popularized with identity theft and other crimes, or simple ridicule or bullying. And the resultant chilling effects, where people who wish to speak feel they cannot because they might suffer, especially in cases where this is an actual risk rather than normal existential dread. Without privacy, you can't be inclusive.
I don't feel as strongly about privacy because "community" is what holds civilisation together.
Its nice to have a little space, and to have your own thoughts and opinions, but not at the expense of civilisation.
People should not be able to use privacy to evade responsibility or debts.
We always need to balance freedoms with responsibility.
Final thought is that this is precisely why government and politics is not a joke and needs to be taken seriously. We need small transparent governments we can trust and that are a held accountable.
If you don't trust your government, you've got bigger problems than your privacy.
> We always need to balance freedoms with responsibility.
Sure, but is this a measure that appropriately balances it?
I think the traditional view is that the balance should be: your rights end where they start stepping on another person's rights.
We aren't really talking about someone else being harmed, we are talking about (at worst) someone harming themselves. There is no other person being harmed.
On the other hand, porn habits are a great way to blackmail people. When the identity data gets leaked, it will very easily ruin lives.
From a balance perspective, i don't really think it follows that the benefits are worth the potential harms. I think civilization is best preserved by not doing this.
[deleted]
> I don't feel as strongly about privacy because "community" is what holds civilisation together.
Dude I'm sure most people are okay with their neighbors knowing their names and addresses. We're talking about the governments and megacorps here. Theses are not "communities" in any traditional sense.
> small transparent governments
No developed country has that. Not EU and definitely not the US.
> If you don't trust your government
No one should 100% trust their government.
That's literally what EU privacy laws are about and guess what...
Anti government folk from the USA hated them and decided they were government overreach.
Please, the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really.
Privacy from companies maybe, privacy from governments and cops, certainly not.
The EU is both pro-privacy and anti-privacy. In many ways, they're ahead of the US - you can opt out of more telemetry, more advertising, more tracking. Good. But then the encryption stuff - bad.
Informed consent laws - good. Laws about third-party tracking - good. So it's some good, some bad.
But, on the topic of encryption, it's not like the US is pure here either.
> the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really.
The EU is not a monolith. There are many people pushing in many different directions. Sometimes the result is good, sometimes less so.
After the pushing is done then the resulting regulations are a monolith
> privacy from governments and cops
It is very much not clear to me that you should have privacy from governments or cops. Aren't the whole point of the government and cops that they are the institutions we have created to entrust with this access?
Please feel free to set up a spyware on your phone that records every image you send, every text and email you write and saves all this data somewhere that you will never have access to and for an indefinite amount of time.
That is exactly what the EU is trying to do with the Chat Control law. Targeted law enforcement access to some data is not what is being discussed here.
We are talking about 24/7/365 mass surveillance without warrants and without the suspicion of any crime committed.
What did your MEP say when you complained to them about it?
Mine said the party was taking it very seriously and it's clearly something that is important to me. I trust them to do exactly nothing.
Us techbros like it when Bezos and Zuck and Musk have all the information, because you can “vote with your dollar” and avoid them.
Ah yes, lock you up for Facebook posts UK is the bastion of privacy.
To be fair to OP I don’t think the UK is in the EU
Firstly, the UK is not in the EU. That's what Brexit was.
Secondly, incitement to violence is illegal in most countries. If you think it's not in yours, why not try it and see where you end up?
> Secondly, incitement to violence is illegal in most countries. If you think it's not in yours, why not try it and see where you end up?
By all means, if that's the way you want to represent the issue, then there is no discussion to be had.
I will, however, represent it this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd...
I can be compelled in a few situations in this incomplete list were of the "deserved" type. But you can't convince me on all of them.
I appreciate your emotions, but can you explain how it impacts you in practice?
> 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.
But there won't be.
Because the ultimate purpose of laws like this isn't really to prevent minors from accessing porn. Ultimately, it's to
1) outlaw porn for everyone, because it's "sinful", and
2) outlaw discussions and depictions of queer—and more specifically, nowadays, especially trans—issues, because according to them, anything queer is automatically pornographic, no matter how tame the actual content is.
Don't forget about sex education and literature in general
Knowledge is power.
[deleted]
You’re getting downvoted, likely because the people downvoting you dont realize that Project 2025 explicitly calls for the complete outlawing of pornography and the imprisonment of anyone who produces it. They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.
And when they've banned all of those, they'll be banning r/pastorarrested for pointing out what everyone already knows about these fine upstanding moralists.
Here's the quote about their plans for transfolk:
> Transgender people will see their existence denied and their rights stripped away under Project 2025. The authors equate "transgender ideology" to pornography, calling for it to be outlawed. While the far-right policy agenda cannot directly ban transgenderism, it aims to do so indirectly by labeling it as pornography, and then outlawing pornography itself - effectively erasing transgender identity from the U.S.
Source: https://doctorsoftheworld.org/blog/project-2025-lgbtq-rights...
That's a piece on a third party site. Do you have an original source for the quote?
Skimming the 900+ pages of the primary source (one web copy here: https://assets.glaad.org/m/26f7f002c06fc6be/original/2025_Ma... )
the search term 'transgender' appears 13 times largely in screeds against the things the authors don't like, these are followed by dot point actions to take to eliminate the mote in their neighbour's eye.
Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.
Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection.
* Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists;
Reverse policies that allow transgender individuals to serve in the military. Gender dysphoria is incompatible with the demands of military service, and the use of public monies for transgender surgeries or to facilitate abortion for servicemembers should be ended.
What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.
* Restrict the application of Bostock. The new Administration should restrict Bostock’s application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing.
* Rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.
> They also frame transgender ideology and LGBTQ+ educational materials as falling under “pornography”, essentially calling for these to be banned.
Close, but it's worse than that -- they don't want LGBTQ+ material merely banned; they want LGBTQ+ people dead, or at the very least banned from all public life. The next step is where they call for the death penalty for child abuse (also in Project 2025). So according to them LGBTQ+ is pornographic -> pornography is child abuse -> child abuse is punishable by death -> therefore existing as a queer person is punishable by death.
No, they very much realize that. The people down voting them want these things. HN isn't some bastion of progressive thinkers or the libertarian hacker-minded anymore. It's chock full of wealthy tech-bro neocons who dote on figures like Elon Musk.
Just see how any criticism of dear leader gets flagged in mere minutes now.
[deleted]
These are Authoritarian Christo-fascists. They do not care. They will demonize everyone involved in anything related to online sex. They are coming for the sex workers, and all of porn too - they stated they would do this in "Project 2025". "Think of the children" is how they justify it.
You can't show porn to kids in regular stores, I'm not sure why it's okay to do it on the internet, such that it becomes "raising" the kids when it's not in the first instance.
If you need an id to buy porn irl why wouldn't you need one to buy it online?
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?
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?
I mean if the alternative is complete lawlessness, then I suppose I do want digital borders. AMA.
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.
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.
How old are you?
[dead]
Challenge accepted
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?”
VPN.
Oh, don't you worry, they'll come after VPNs next. After all, this makes them accomplices to felony acts.
[deleted]
laughs in residential proxy
yeah my thoughts are that this is largely a User Experience problem than an onerous liability problem
The blog owner doesn't need to implement an ID check, the browser or OS just needs to tap into a service that has checked ID
Conservatives are awfully fond of government meddling and regulation for being so purportedly anti-government meddling and regulation.
At this point I think accusing conservatives of hypocrisy is blase and yesterday's news.
Of course conservatives are hypocrites. All they care about are their end goals, and they will say and do whatever they need to say and do in order to achieve them.
One of those goals involves enshrining Christian values into law. Christian values themselves are often hypocritical and contradictory. And inconsistent: ask 10 Christians to weigh in on a thorny moral issue and you'll get 15 different answers.
And on top of that, the conservatives in power have a fetish for using those power structures to enrich themselves and their cronies, under the guise of "small government" and "free markets".
I don't think exposing conservative hypocrisy is a winning or useful strategy anymore. Conservatives are masters at cognitive dissonance, and at hand-waving away inconsistencies in their views, or the very real, very negative consequences of their policy plans. I'm not sure what the right strategy is, though. And perhaps this is why liberals fail to win hearts and minds when it matters.
And yet...
Whenever anyone has economic woes, there are still plenty of people out there who will reflexively say "maybe we needs some Republicans in charge for a bit, they're more fiscally responsible and will help small businesses" etc etc.
And Republicans will happily run on those ideas.
And then not execute them.
So someone needs to be hammering home the fact that it's lies - that Republicans will only help the wealthy and giant corporations, that they don't care a whit for the deficit, that they will spend spend spend on their pet issues and crony projects - until it stops being an effective campaign soundbite.
Sadly hammering it home means nothing - this is an idea which belongs to a news media environment where something like the fairness doctrine and bi-partisanship existed.
On The Right of the media economy, you surface the best narratives, and there are no penalties for being inaccurate. Because everything is opinion and rhetorical tricks, saying “It’s terrible what happened in this Dem state. Here’s how the dems caused it” and then being able to say “we never said that dems were monsters”, while platforming fringe theories like pizza gate.
If you go against the narrative you just dont get airtime and attention - meaning you get no revenue or political power. Worse, you might get primaried.
Hammering the truth means nothing, because you would only be selling it back to the center and the left.
The right is interested in facts, only to the point that they support their goals. It’s a protected market.
You can’t really outcompete rackets, but you can’t really restrict speech without getting hit by free speech arguments.
It’s a problem worth solving though, and its a problem worth learning about.
One thing that seems to work isn’t counter speech, its angry speech. It’s not the pro-vax group that gets credence vs the anti-vaxxers, it’s the anti-anti-vaxxers who do it.
I wish people had better ideas, but its hard to even realize the specifics of the market failure.
[deleted]
I expect a liquor store to check ID, why not a porn store?
Do booze shops in the US store peoples id's after they've flashed them (pun intended)?
In some states stores are required to scan IDs. I'd be surprised if e.g. Kroger weren't storing that information. All of these porn laws I've read at least ban any storage. As far as I know digital ID standards are also at least designed to allow only sharing "over18" without other identifying information.
Kroger is most definitely storing this information. I rarely shop any Kroger store, but when they started doing IDs scans, I shop there less and no longer buy anything that requires my ID.
Similarly, Wal-Mart seems to know who I am based on my card transactions. When I swipe my card they ask if I would like a paper or an SMS receipt. I’m still not sure how they got that number association.
And if I provide it how do they prove they aren't storing it other than their word, which is untrustable for many reasons?
You don't actually provide it to the porn site. Everything goes through a 3rd party escrow. The site you're trying to access only gets a message from the trusted ID partner that you are indeed the age you say you are.
Now, I still hate the idea that any corporation is storing my ID, but it's not every Tom Dicken' Harry porn site you might be viewing.
Birthday attack: most places punch the eight digits MMDDYYYY into the keypad. You think you're safe, but that's 1 in over 20,000 uniqueness practically. Each store has how many local regulars? Sure sometimes there's overlap in birthdays, but it's unique enough.
Many bars and casinos store your ID forever.
It seems to me that age verification via ID submission online and the subsequent storage of IDs are separate issues.
How could they be separate issues when the submission of an ID image obviously enables both the subsequent storage of the ID and also the presentment of the ID to others.
We know that very few organizations are capable of effectively controlling confidential information that they're legally bound to keep confidential. Requiring things that are going to lead to large stores of ID images is asking for trouble.
When you show your ID in a store, the clerk generally doesn't retain a copy of it, and if they do, it's apparent because they take the card to scan it... regardless, they can't take the scanned copy and present it at another store, because the other store will detect that it's not an original.
Because they are. You do not have to store the ID for verification: storage it’s just one way to implement such a system.
I agree with you that systems that store those IDs are ticking bombs.
Booze shops are state licensed and regulated. If they mess around with my PII, I have direct recourse options.
[flagged]
Interesting, why did you give up your right to buy liquor anonymously? And you also seem to be willing to give up your right to anonymous porn. Why?
Most of us alive in the US today never had a right to buy liquor anonymously, unless you’re making a natural rights argument independent of contrary constitutional or statutory law. The 21st Amendment gives lots of authority to states to regulate or prohibit alcohol sales, including the right to require ID.
With that said, even now, it’s normal that liquor stores only look at IDs without transmitting or recording the information anywhere (in the absence of fraud concerns), so if the purchase itself is made with cash, it has most (not quite all) of the same data privacy and security consequences as a true anonymous purchase.
This is very different from the online porn age verification proposals.
> why did you give up your right to buy liquor anonymously?
That's not entirely true - once you look old enough most places will stop asking for ID.
As for why: because there is (or at least, was) no other system to identify whether someone is underage and, by extension, more likely to underestimate the consequences of their actions, make worse choices under the effect of alcohol, and suffer its effects more strongly. Same reason why the legal system makes a difference between minors and adults.
[deleted]
[dead]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device.
I run a pi-hole that blocks ads and porn, but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people. There are some commercial products but they are expensive and also take time and at least a little tech ability to set up.
… and of course any phone with 5G/LTE gets around this. Cellular is impossible to police.
> parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device
Tough luck, I say. If you’re going to bring humans into this world, you better do a great job at it and not externalize responsibility or create a nuisance for others.
Remember that everything you have is the result of other people bringing humans into this world.
Every human being creates nuisance sometimes. The only winning move in your game is not to live.
With all due respect to parents that overscheduled themselves: Tough. Raise your kids. Don't try to raise mine.
> Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device.
I'm going to have to upload 3D models of my face and pictures of my ID just to use the internet because... some people don't like the idea of other people's kids using the internet?
This is a good point of course but that's always the issue, no? You may try to hide violence from your children, but if they see gang violence around them it doesn't matter. You can try to hide sexual content from your kids but if they have friends who share the content, hear people talking about it, or live in an area where prostitution occurs, you can't stop them from being exposed to it.
These were problems from before the age of devices. If anything car oriented development has made it easier to control your children's experience diet by controlling their physical proximity.
Fundamentally I think you just need to trust your kids beyond a certain point. Do your best to build constructive consumption habits with them (including restricting access to devices as needed), help build good moral frameworks, but always remember that the world is messy and it's your child's job to synthesize their upbringing with their experiences. We all did the same while growing up
It takes less than 5 minutes to set up NextDNS with the same functionality and it costs $2 a month for unlimited DNS calls. If you download the app it absolutely can police cellular.
If these legislators cared about keeping kids safe, they’d be focused on getting them off social media, not stopping adults from exercising free speech.
Comcast’s Xfinity service doesn’t let you change DNS in their router and blocks queries to other DNS providers if you are using their router.
That really should be illegal. It looks like there might be workarounds, but that defeats the point of being easy to use.
None of my non-technical relatives have Comcast, so I’m not sure how it would work out. It works fine on ATT, Verizon, Cox and Spectrum though.
> but that’s way beyond the technical capability of probably 95% of people.
It really isn’t, and even if it were an ISP could offer it. Indeed I believe most ISPs do (I chose one which is unfiltered, I do my own filtering at a router and dns level, the biggest threat is DoH)
That still seems better than the proposed cure. Connected devices are overrated.
What happens when their friends have them?
It is very hard for parents who aren’t tech savvy or are busy (single parents or both work) to police this stuff.
I’m playing devils advocate because if we pretend this isn’t a problem eventually governments will force onerous regulation. It is a problem. We need to come up with better solutions if we don’t want worse ones.
It’s devils advocate because I think while kids shouldn’t be looking at porn the brain rot shit is at least as bad and possibly worse. Kids YouTube is a lobotomy.
Sounds like marketing is the problem. In fact, I'd say 90% of the Internet's more problematic aspects disappear once you get rid of marketing/monetization. We had a good thing. We let mercantilism and surveillance capitalism ruin it.
To some extent, Section 230 is to blame.
> parents that are too busy
If you are too busy to parent, then you shouldn't be one in the first place.
Then they shouldn't let their kids have connected devices. It's that simple.
doesnt realize theyre the problem
>Devils advocate: parents that are too busy or not tech savvy are helpless to block content without essentially forbidding their kids from using any connected device.
May be such inept people who don't care that much about their kids as to setup parent control shouldn't have kids in the first place? Why we all should take a hit to our rights/business/etc. just because of such careless and irresponsible parents?
Your kids is your personal responsibility. It the same story again and again - why can't these conservative people own their personal responsibilities without hoisting its costs onto the others?
Not the parent commenter, but they just said that most parents don't have the technical aptitude to do so.
Implying that they don't care about their kids, or shouldn't have kids as a result, is a pretty awful thing to say.
In this day and age lack of knowledge is no excuse.
Especially when everyone who would have this particular "problem" has access to various search tools and video websites that would explain "solutions".
I feel like, to say that, you haven't tried helping many older adults — or even middle-aged adults — use technology.
If my older family member was scammed by something online, and someone said "lack of knowledge is no excuse," I think they'd really be missing the mark. Or if they shouldn't reproduce because they aren't good with technology.
It's a very HN take but it's one that lacks a lot of humanity.
>> I feel like, to say that, you haven't tried helping many older adults — or even middle-aged adults — use technology.
I have actually. And do so pretty regularly.
But the comment I was replying to was presumably not about older adults, and more so about younger parents of minor children, whom I wouldn't normally class as "older adults", and for the most part I would think know basic skills like using a search engine and/or Youtube (or some other video sharing app)
Maybe parents shouldn't buy their kids technology they don't know how to use?
Middle aged adults are millennials. This isn't the 90s anymore when middle aged people were raised on type writers.
Sorry you're experiencing a bunch of downvotes over a counterpoint from your own experience.
Even though I could predict what side HN would stand on any sort of internet freedom post, reading through all the reasonable yet greyed-out comments in this thread feels like HN's last dying breath as a place for genuine debate.
The replies here are disturbing for their lack of concern or even awareness of the fact that some parents have, you know, economic pressures? Like they have to work long hours or multiple jobs? Both parents have to work?
This site can be really gross sometimes. I want to think it's just that the site skews young and people just don't know. I might have said similar things when I was 20.
You’re not arguing it well. There are effective free tools; not expensive ones like you claim. You’re worried about regulation when the Supreme Court is supporting this burdensome patchwork that’ll outlive its usefulness because it’s politically difficult to repeal. And yes somewhere there is an unsupervised kid whose parents are overwhelmed by other pressures, but of all the risks to that kid, if porn is #1 then we’re talking upper middle class or higher.
It’s not gross to want parents to only parent their kids, and to leave the kids of other parents out of it. It’s your responsibility what your kid does on devices that you permit them to have. If you can’t control your kid when they’re not in your presence, or can’t trust them when they’re left to their own devices (pun intended), that’s an issue, but it isn’t a technological problem, but rather a parenting problem.
This is a barrier put in place so that children are less likely to casually access these sites while they're browsing around.
As an adult, no-one is forcing you to view pornographic websites. If you don't want to provide your ID as per these laws, simply refrain from viewing. It really is that straightforward a choice.
Right, so you're admitting what we already know to be true: it's censorship.
Now, I can get behind some censorship if it's for very good reasons. As soon as it's for moralistic reasons, you've lost me. This is a morality law. Morality laws are bad, period. We need real, concrete reasons for blocking content and enforcing censorship - not morality.
Why not? Because morals change from person to person and throughout history. What an evangelical thinks is moral is different from what I think is moral.
If the internet existed during times of slavery, would they have censored websites addressing freedom because it is "immoral"? In my mind, yes. That's a problem with the entire thought process. So, we should throw the thought process out.
I don't know what the future holds in 10 years, 20 years, 30. I don't want to be bound to laws that rely solely on morality. That's just asking for trouble.
I mean, even just the word "pornography" is a moral footgun. Who defines that? Because a large portion of the US believes anything containing homosexuals is automatically pornographic, regardless of the material.
Proving one's age is required for many other activities that are considered unsuitable for children, such as purchasing alcohol and drugs, and watching age-restricted films in the cinema.
Of course this means that any adult, when challenged, who refuses to show ID as proof of age, will be denied service. But again that refusal is their choice. They voluntarily refrained from complying with the access requirements.
How is this substantially different to an adult refusing to show ID to access an age-restricted website?
The internet is already blocked by age. In order to order internet service, you must be an adult, and you must prove it by showing papers, such as residence and pay stubs.
Once the service or good is sold, all bets are off. The clerk at the corner store might ask for your ID to buy alcohol, yes. But they do not follow you home to ensure you don't give wine to your kid.
And, if they did, would you be comfortable with that? I think no. Why not? Privacy. I don't want a random clerk watching me every time I decide to drink or smoke. It's a violation of my privacy.
So, privacy - there's your answer, that's the difference.
The internet is not blocked by age. Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it.
Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched? Age-restricted websites are no different. You can comply with the access requirement, or refrain from using the service. It's your freedom of choice.
No-one is forcing you to watch 18-rated films at the cinema, or purchase alcohol or drugs, or view pornographic material online. If you don't like the requirement to prove your age by presenting some form of ID, then all you need to do is voluntarily refrain from these and any other age-restricted activities.
Many public WiFi hotspots have content filters. Kids are not going to be seeing porn at the library.
The issue here is there's a difference between a mainstream service, like a cinema, and a tiny author website which probably gets a few hundred hits a months at most.
And the ultimate ideological aim is to take all erotica offline. Especially any kind of queer erotica.
This is using ID issues for ideological censorship, not trying to set up an ID system to streamline access to adult material by adult consumers.
There are infinite levels of privacy.
> Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched?
For me, no. For others, yes.
But this is a different degree of privacy to what we're talking about. It's not the same, and you cannot make the jump for free.
What I mean is, just because I am okay with this degree of privacy violation, does not mean I consent to all privacy violations which may ever exist. Again, you might be fine with an R-rated movie - but you, yourself, would not be fine with a store clerk living at your house to ensure you don't give kids alcohol. So you, yourself, understand and live by the principle.
> Any child with a laptop or phone, or any other device that can connect to a wifi hotspot, can access it.
Similarly, any child living in my house can access my scotch.
It is up to me, the person who purchased the good or service, to ensure that doesn't happen. It is not up to a third-party like the store clerk. If I am a business, it is then up to me that the internet I provide is adequately censored. Which is what happens in practice.
Public wifi near universally implements porn blocks in the first place. I can't imagine there would be much chagrin about promoting that into a law.
> Do you refuse to watch age-restricted films in the cinema because the owner of the cinema might have a record of what you've watched?
I can't imagine that there aren't many people who refrain from watching all sorts of content in public out of privacy concerns.
>If you don't like the requirement to prove your age by presenting some form of ID, then all you need to do is voluntarily refrain from these and any other age-restricted activities.
I certainly don't, and I would definitely oppose this being made into law.
> Give me your ID or stop posting on HN. No one is forcing you to post on HN. If you don't want me to know your name and address and age and driver's license number and keep a record of everything you say that I sell to anybody I want and store in an unencrypted hard drive, you don't have to post.
Do you see the problem yet?
Sgould I say "Cambridge Analytica" now or later?
You should read the article.
> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids.
This is simplistic. I think you'll find parents are not a uniform bloc in favor of this kind of overreach.
I'm concerned that such validation would need to be proprietary and locked down with some sort of user hostile TPM-like-thing in order to be effective. If this wasn't the case, then anyone could fork the foss tool and create a bypass. The average child won't do this, but a few will and some adults probably will over anti DRM principles and then it's published and widely available.
These are ideological litigious fanatics among a much bigger herd of worried parents. They’ll attack any bypass tool and risk degrading the features of normal stuff like browsers and url parser libraries; totally ineffective at solving the problem but doing something in the eyes of unsophisticated constituents.
> Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids.
(1) Without addressing the general statement, specifically this isn't new. You’ve historically not been allowed to buy pornography or cigarettes or alcohol without age verification or watch obscene content between the nightly news runs. I don't see this specifically as parents wanting the government to raise their kids at all. It’s people without any other real options wanting to make it more difficult for inappropriate material to end up in the hands of minors. When I was 12 I remember getting online with AOL discs and having popups with porn appear in front of me as I’m playing neopets, because some unsavory ad got accidentally “clicked” many sessions ago. How can a parent “parent” that?
> If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should)
(2) These laws already exist, the internet was a loophole. If it’s done right you verify your age when you make your account and the site doesn’t bug you again. Not sure how frequently you’re visiting new porn sites, but I can’t imagine getting over prompted would be a real problem.
(3) There is a concept of using ZKPs to do more things client side. However I think currently people are more excited about selective disclosure. You just give the site a signed claim that you’re over 18 and that’s all they know. It’s more private than handing over your DL at the grocery store 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.
They should, shouldn’t they. But some privacy nut out there will say we can’t have nice things because an advertiser might use it to profile you.
Really though one aspect of digital identity is presence and liveliness checking. The states that issue your ID to Apple Wallet are only willing to do so because Apple ensures that the user presence is verified at time of use.
The question isn’t why should you have to jump through hoops, it’s why should we enforce age restrictions in person but not in the internet—why haven't you had to jump through all the existing hoops to watch internet porn until now?
1) it doesn’t go as far back as you think. Only within my lifetime did the drinking age settle on 21. The Feds couldn’t do it directly, so they hacked highway funds. So that’s a bad example when porno has changed so much. What we’re risking here is parents who haven’t tried any solutions being convinced that litigation is the only way.
2+3. A simple cookie with a birth year ought to work. Why should every site worry about South Dakota’s definitions when checking a cookie seems reasonable effort. Circumvention of that is already fraud.
I said decades not centuries.
A cookie with a birth year is not a cryptographic verification of a digital identity document. Anybody can click “I’m over 18”.
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.
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
You already have that with Cloudflare checking almost every single website on earth, as you can see, that doesn't work.
Clicking on pictures of motorcycles, while annoying, is a very different thing than having to show your ID.
You won't though. Malicious actors will find a way around this - either purchasing or stealing whatever form of ID is used for this. The only people who will suffer are law-abiding citizens simply trying to browse the Internet.
"Workarounds?" Malicious actors will just operate out of different countries like they always have.
be careful what you ask for.
GAN style training is only going to get cheaper and easier. Detection will collapse to noise. Any ID runes will be mishandled and the abuse will fly under the radar. Only the space of problems where AI fundamentally can't be used, such as being at a live event, will be meaningfully resistant to AI.
Another way for it all to unfold is maybe 98% of online discourse is useless in a few years. Maybe it's useless today, but we just didn't have the tools to make it obvious by both generating and detecting it. Instead of AI filtering to weed out AI, a more likely outcome is AI filtering to weed out bad humans and our own worst contributions. Filter out incessant retorting from keyboard warriors. Analyze for obviously inconsistent deduction. Treat logical and factual mistakes like typos. Maybe AI takes us to a world where humans give up on the 97% and only 1% that is useless today gets through. The internet's top 2% is a different internet. It is the only internet that will be valuable for training data to identify and replace the 1% and converge onto the spaces that AI can't touch.
People will have to search for interactions that can't be imitated and have enough value to make it through filters. We will have to literally touch grass. All the time. Interactions that don't affect the grass we touch will vanish from the space of social media and web 2.0 services that have any reason to operate whatsoever. Heat death of the internet has a blast radius, and much of what humans occupy themselves with will turn out to be within that blast radius.
A lot of people will by definition be disappointed that the middle standard deviation of thought on any topic no longer adds anything. At least at first. There used to be a time when the only person you heard on the radio had to be somewhat better than average to be heard. We will return to that kind of media because the value of not having any expertise or first-hand experience will drop to such an immeasurable low that those voices no longer participate or appear to those using filters. Entire swaths of completely replaceable, completely redundant online "community" will just wither to dust, giving us time to touch the grass, hone the 2%, and make sense of other's 2%.
Callers on radio shows used to be interesting because people could have a tiny window into how wildly incorrect and unintelligent some people are. Pre-internet media was dominated by people who were likely slightly above average. Radio callers were something like misery porn or regular-people porn. You could sometimes hear someone with such an awful take that it made you realize that you are not in the bottom 10%. The internet has given us radio callers, all the time, all of them. They flooded Twitter, Reddit, Facebook. They trend and upvote themselves. They make YouTube channels where they talk into a camera with higher quality than commercial rigs from 2005. There is a GDP for stupidity that never existed except as the novelty object of a more legitimate channel. When we "democratized" media, it wasn't exclusively allowing in thoughts and opinions that were higher quality than "mainstream".
The frightening conclusion is possibly that we are living in a kind of heat death now. It's not the AIs that are scary. Its the humans we have platformed. The bait posts on Instagram will be out-competed. Low quality hot takes will be out-competed. Repetitive and useless comments on text forums will be out-competed. Advertising revenue, which is dependent on the idea that you are engaging with someone who will actually care about your product, will be completely disrupted. The entire machine that creates, monetizes, and foments utterly useless information flows in order to harness some of the energy will be wrecked, redundant, shut down.
Right now, people are correct that today's AI is on an adoption curve that would see more AI spam if tomorrow's AI isn't poised to filter out not just spam but a great mass of low-value human-created content. However, when we move to suppress "low quality slop" we will increasingly be filtering out low-quality humans. When making the slop higher quality so that it flies under the radar, we will be increasingly replacing and out-competing the low-quality content of the low-quality human. What remains will be of a very high deductive consistency. Anything that can be polished to a point will be. Only new information outside the reach of the AI and images of distant stars will be beyond the grasp of this convergence.
All of this is to say that the version of the internet where AI is the primary nexus of interaction via inbound and outbound filtering and generation might be the good internet we think we can have if we enact some totalitarian ID scheme to fight against slop that is currently replacing what the bottom 10% of the internet readily consumes anyway.
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.
Walled gardens are only LLM-proof until some AI company makes an offer for the data.
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
>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
Discord just changed management and new managment immediately said they are interested in IPO'ing. If trends emerge, it will indeed get overriden by bots like Reddit did around the time it was preparing to IPO. I see it as an inevitability at this point.
But that's already been happening in discord for years.
The parent’s point is that identity verification would stop that.
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.
WhatsApp does this. I get added to scam channels
It was a very tonedeaf take, that's why. Most of the internet is concentrated in the top 100 websites, and 80% of them would not be affected by this law. So you'll still see plenty of bots on Youtube, Discord, Reddit, news sites, and so on.
Blogs with a few comments would go from 5 real commenters to 0 or 1. This does not get the desired result.
----
secondly, I assure you there's plenty of classic spam on servers that don't have good moderation. pre-AI spam never disappeared.
I’d rather have this regulated properly before cloudflare becomes the defacto standard of id checks.
Nothing is going to be "regulated properly" for at least the next 3.5 years, and we'll all be dealing with backwards decline for decades after. That's best case, but i'm guessing It'll be even worse than the "radicals" are shouting about.
What issues do you have with Cloudflare becoming the defacto standard that wouldn't also apply to whatever would come of regulating it 'properly'?
Age verification seems like a subset of human verification so if it gets rid of both bots and captchas then why not?
Pretty sure you can guess a few.
Guess a few what?
Reasons why not.
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.
Because you're choosing not to see the obvious downsides. Wasn't this community the ones worried last decade about tech companies havesting their data for profit?
But sure, let's explain the downsides:
1. this isn't an all encompasing law. It's only for sites that host adult content. You know what people will do... remove adult content.
2. As we see this year, rules are useless without enforcement. I'm sure X or Reddit or whatever large companies will strike deals and be exempt. This will only harm the little sites who get harassed by vested interests.
3. There's been campaigns to try and assossiate LGBT to pornography for a while now. This will delve beyond porn and be used to enforce yet more bigotry. This "think of the children" rationale is always their backdoor to stripping away freedoms, and I sure don't trust it this time.
4. On a moral level, I care more about retaining my pseudo anonymity than about worrying over bots. I'm not giving my ID.ME in order to interact on a games forum, for instance. The better way to address this (if these people actually cared about it) is to force companies to disclose with commenters are being operated via bots. Many websites have API's so that would eliminate many of them, even if it's not perfect.
5. This execution sounds awful. On a general principle, I do not want people sued over state laws that they do not reside in. Why should California need to comply with Floridian laws? This is why porn sites impacted simply block those state IP's. The Internet is more and more connected, so you can imagine the chaos is this is generalized more, instead of actually taking hold and making federal laws. This is half hearted.
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.
I don’t agree, at least as far as legal obligation goes. The average voter is far more worried about porn and other explicit content and not so much about anything else.
This doesn't really track with widespread and normalized use of pornographic materials, including written descriptions, by most adults in this country. There's a pretty wide gulf between "I don't think kids should be able to access this stuff" and "I think we need to supercharge the surveillance state and destroy the first amendment"
This doesn't destroy the first amendment any more than requiring an ID & background check to purchase a firearm destroys the second amendment. Which is to say that it might, but for exactly the same reason, so The People ultimately need to decide on a consistent choice of interpretation.
1A: Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech. (Note: freedom of speech includes the ability to listen to what you want)
2A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Congress making a law that prevents minors from accesing information is a clearly a breach of the first text.
Point of sale ID checks for guns are much less clearly "infringing on the right to keep arms". It is only limiting the sale, not the ownership.
Except one person googling and watching porn has nothing to do with other people, very different from buying guns
Did you miss the recent years of some states trying to ban gay/trans books from libraries? Or even just books written by gay/trans authors? It's been part of their playbook for years to try and assosiate transgenderism with pornographic.
You are right, the average voter is not worried about any single enforcement outside of CSAM. The people who will exploit this are not just "your average voter".
[deleted]
This doesn't sound so bad. I would much prefer to have discussions about politics, technology, or religion safe in the knowledge that I am not inadvertently communicating with a minor.
I had very passionate talks online about all 3 categories before I turned 18, and I got a lot of feedback, from older folk I didn't previously know, that I shaped opinions and formed new perspectives - and a lot of the talks sure as shit did the same for me. I cannot say I would have nearly the same current passion that I do for technology, aspects of politics, and philosophy (including that of religion) without such exposures during my adolescent years, and I'm sure you'd be hard-pressed to find others young enough that wouldn't say the same - provided they have an adequate baseline of introspection.
On that note, out of all the examples you could have given for discussion categories that are unbecoming to have with minors, you chose 3 relatively benign ones, lol.
I don't care if they are 16 or 68, I discuss about topics, not necesarily with the person themself. the former can be insightful and the latter still be extremely close minded.
I also don't understand why the government should control who I can talk to in a digital space. Maybe start investigating the president's flight records if you suddenly care about children interacting with adults.
Parent said identity verification, not age verification.
> In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site.
> It's unlikely these interstate prosecutions would happen...
It might wind up being uncommon, but definitely not unlikely - it's basically assured that it will happen eventually, especially if the judge finds the text in question particularly or personally offensive.
I guess now is a great time to start a KYC company.
If an state AG tries to prosecute an entity that has no ties to the state other than content being passively accessible, that's probably another supreme court case if it doesn't get immediately decided in favor of the defendant in the lower courts. You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in.
If Texas wants to block content from entities that have nothing to do with Texas, they can build their own great firewall.
> You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in.
It’s true, it would cause a great deal of chaos if suddenly every person and business had to comply with fifty-plus different and sometimes contradictory state laws.
But it seems like that’s where we’re headed?
As far as I understand it (IANAL), this ruling decides that the speech restrictions imposed by the Texas ID verification law are compliant with the 1st amendment. It didn't touch on whether or not Texas can enforce its laws on entities that don't do business in Texas.
IANAL, but it seems like things are already moving in this direction. For example, FL has a similar state law regarding pornography, and the response from many porn sites has been to comply or block FL IPs rather than fight it up to the supreme court. I guess someone will do it eventually, but I suspect there is an assumption that they'd be wasting their time and money to do so.
Yeah I don't think a business is going to try to force the issue when a geoblock is simple to implement. If it happens, it's probably going to be some kind of advocacy group pushing it.
Until someone files suit on the commonly known ineffectiveness of geolocating IPs to try to force ID checks instead.
Isn't this covered by the "full faith and credit" clause? [0]
[0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S1-1/AL...
Technically anything is possible with the Calvinball Supreme Court, but states can choose not to extradite their citizens. E.g. NY has a shield law for abortion doctors.
https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/police-departments...
This feels helpful, but puts a big burden on the person targeted. I live in California; let's say I run afoul of this Tennessee law and am criminally prosecuted.
California decides this is bullshit and won't extradite me to Tennessee. Great. The article mentions that 20-odd states are implementing similar laws (though most offer only civil penalties, not criminal). Let's say I want to visit friends in New York. I get on a plane, and the plane flies over one of those other states with shitty laws. They've decided to help Tennessee with their shitty-law enforcement, see that my name is on a passenger list of a flight crossing that state's airspace, and they require my plane divert to a local airport so they can arrest me.
Ok, maybe states can't do that? But I still have to be careful how I fly; I have to only take direct flights, or be very careful as to which connecting airports I allow in my itineraries. I have to hope that all my flights go smoothly, and that my flights never have issues that require them to divert to an airport in a state with shitty laws.
This still sucks for people who don't have to live in states with these garbage laws.
That would be one wild case if it did happen. Sucks for whoever it happens to, but that would 100% turn into a high profile case that puts the 10th amendment into question.
To be honest, it would be settled relatively quickly because I don't think any state wants to be the one to set such precedent as of now.
There are constitutional limits on when state courts can exercise jurisdiction over people not physically located in the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Inter...
> Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer.
> Courts have held that the greater the commercial nature and level of interactivity associated with the website, the more likely it is that the website operator has "purposefully avail[ed] itself" of the forum state's jurisdiction. [..] In contrast, a passive website that simply makes the information available to the user will be less likely to have a basis for personal jurisdiction.
(By the same principle, even an interactive website can probably avoid jurisdiction if they block IP addresses from the state, and don't encourage people to evade the block or anything like that.)
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
We've banned this account.
[dead]
> especially if the judge finds the text in question particularly or personally offensive.
Pro-censorship advocates will venue shop to find a sympathetic court
First they will find targets, then decide on the crime, then shop the venue.
It's going to get used against trans and queer people. Someone will try to claim that a trans person in normal street clothes is "corrupting children", or that merely mentions of their existence is.
Or now is a good time to build privacy tools into everything.
Unfortunately, this is the law we're talking about. Privacy tools don't do much to mitigate the hardships of life as a fugitive.
This is presently happening in China with homosexual literature: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c056nle2drno
Rural police departments decide that a piece of text 'harmed' one of their residents and prosecute the author.
Judges are not the people that prosecute crimes
True, but it's a given that prosecutors will do it since that's their job.
There was a NYT article a couple weeks ago about Chinese morality police doing mass arrests of erotica authors,
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/world/asia/china-boys-lov... ("Chinese Police Detain Dozens of Writers Over Gay Erotic Online Novels") [note article contains large images of erotica novel covers]
But you'd *expect* that of the PRC; the US, wow, has it ever fallen fast and fallen hard.
The Supreme Court is just doing their part as a part of Project 2025 (which is about 50% accomplished already btw)
[deleted]
[flagged]
But that is US law, as of literally just this week!
> "In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site."
No, that's not the law in the U.S. That's the article writer fearmongering about an imagined state of the law that doesn't exist in the U.S., and still wouldn't exist even after this SCOTUS ruling.
I think that's the point of the article. The Supreme Court has Ruled:
"prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines
and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-
explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states,
facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on
my dinky little free WordPress site."Have you considered that it might be a good idea to keep that out of the hands of 10 year olds?
With random lawsuits as a sort of offhand censorship of <thing you dont personally like>..??
Its the parents job to curate access to the inernet. I say that as a father of three.
[flagged]
that is the responsibility of parents. and why is gay erotica any worse than straight? Kids have sought sex information out once they got curious about sex and since there have been things written down and humans learned to read.
Yes, I believe that ten year olds should only have parent-supervised interactions with the internet.
Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old?
Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given what they learn about themselves in a safer environment than the probable alternative.
[flagged]
> I pray that you will find God and recover from whatever trauma you have been through.
This is not an acceptable comment on HN, as it's a disguised personal attack. Please read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them in future.
[flagged]
> Fucking troll.
That comment was unacceptable and I replied to them to say so, but it's also not OK to comment like this on HN, no matter what you're replying to. If we want others to be better we need to be better ourselves.
Because just like the argument with social media in my opinion it’s better to have governmental regulation on these things so millions of households don’t have to have the same argument with their kids and kids not on social media platforms don’t get left out of a significant percentage of teenage life effectively socially stunting them.
Millions of households talking about this stuff with their kids, setting rule and boundaries and punishments, is exactly what should happen. That is literally what parenting is, and every parent must do it. Pushing that responsibility to the state is not only lazy, it's anathema to a free society. Your children will grow up to be robots who only know how to do what an authority figure tells them to do.
In my opinion it shouldn’t. If 75% of kids are using social media it’s very hard to make the argument that your kid shouldn’t have a smartphone since your kid will argue that you are making them a social pariah (and rightfully so).
As a society we collectively tell kids they can’t have destructive, addictive substances until they’re a certain age and I believe social media and smartphones belong in that category.
We have to implement a stronger surveillance state because... you don't like the idea of other people's kids using the internet?
No, it is not better for children to grow up in a fucking Orwellian dystopia just because you have hang-ups about sex.
I’m less concerned about porn/sex and more concerned about smartphone and social media usage.
But why fall back on the state to police every website and service? Not to mention that the Internet is wider than any jurisdiction you can hope to achieve.
Plenty of devices have parental controls and it is your duty as a parent to look into this and understand the consequences when you hand a device to your child that allows them to consume a global diet of media and connects them to a majority of the global populous. It is not unreasonable to expect device/software manufacturers to provide the power to parents to do this and we already have had the free market provide options for this for decades.
To me, it is not any different than to expect a parent to consider the potential consequences of children playing in the streets, etc. and take action. Thus, to me, the people pushing this kind of legislation are either sloppy thinkers or dishonest in what aims they hope to achieve.
Because it takes a village. Because I am my brother's keeper. Because as a society we have a responsibility to help and protect one another.
[deleted]
If that were truly the goal we would either need a great firewall style internet filter or blocks on devices available to minors, since nothing about this approach works for websites outside of the US jurisdiction.
If you read the article there is a direct quote from Vought, one of the chief project 2025 architects, about how this is really a path to banning pornography. Which the project 2025 folks believe includes any discussion of lgbtq+ lifestyles.
So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works.
I'm asking this in good faith.
Given that:
1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices every one of their peers owns, which a single set of parents has no control over. So "Just keep them off the Internet/control their devices" seems like a silly "Just" instruction.
2. The Internet is nearly infinite. The author of this editorial says "then install a content blocker on your kids’ devices and add my site to it". This is a silly argument since the whole point is that no one has ever heard of him/her and it's obviously impossible for a filter (let's just assume filters can't be bypassed) can "just" enumerate every inappropriate site even if it employed a full-time staff who did nothing but add new sites to the list all day long.
So given all of that, how do we justify how the Internet must operate on different rules than the offline world does? One can't open a "Free adult library" downtown and allow any child to wander in and check out books showing super explicit porn. I'd have to check IDs and do my best to keep kids out. It also seems like it would be gross to do so. If you agree with that, why should the Internet operate on different rules?
I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo.
Flip it on its head.
An age verification requirement might stop your 12-year-old from accessing a porn site headquartered or hosted in the US, but it will do nothing to keep your kid from finding porn on any of the thousands (tens of thousands? more?) of websites hosted in various other countries who don't care about this sort of thing.
These sites are (or will be, if US-based sites become inaccessible) just as easy to find, and just as hard to block with normal parental-controls style content blocking.
Requiring age verification in the US doesn't solve the problem. It just stifles free speech and turns us even more into a Christian nanny-state. The people pushing these laws don't care about children, in reality. They care about banning pornography in the US, and this is one step on that road.
> If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true!
That's not the issue. The issue is that it's impossible to achieve the stated goal (making it impossible or even hard for children to access adult content), period. Whether or not the age-verification is done in a privacy-preserving manner is irrelevant.
There are two ways to "solve" this problem. One is better parental controls, but this will always be a cat-and-mouse game, and will never be perfect. The other is to accept that your kids will sometimes see things that you don't want them to see. That's how the world has always worked, and will continue to always work. Be there for them to provide context and support when they run across these things by accident and are confused or upset, and punish when they seek it out against the rules and boundaries you've set for them. You know... be a parent, and parent them.
It's not about blocking it all. It's about blocking some, removing the monetary incentives to entice children from major players. It's about stopping some of the addiction and damaging effects. Just like we limit alcohol but kids still drink, or vape etc. They still do it, but it requires more effort and that barrier can be a very real barrier to addiction formation.
> It's about stopping some of the addiction and damaging effects
I used to think this was a valid point, but I read something that changed my opinion completely. Pornhub, plus other large sites, have a lot of attention on them. They're a long way from perfect but they do self police, probably far more than anyone here knows, because they don't want to get banned. If you get rid of them, you're boosting smaller and far nastier sites that don't self regulate anywhere near the same amount.
To state it simply, if you block Pornhub, curious children will still find porn, but it'll be far worse.
It's not the same as banning sale of physical items like cigarettes. It's more like if you banned cigarettes but then all the children went and got black market cigarettes that are 50% asbestos.
Are they actually just as hard to block though? e.g. I don't see much reason to allow traffic to any Russian or Chinese IPs for any reason from my network. To be honest a default blacklist to any non-American IP seems like it'd not cause much trouble for my family, and then if there were some educational or FOSS or whatever sites in Europe, those could be whitelisted on a case by case basis.
Similarly the only expected VPN traffic in my network would be inbound to my wire guard server/router. Everything else can be banned by default.
Blocking every country outside the US is simply admitting failure here.
How so? Why would I not default filter e.g. Iran or Chad or El Salvador or most of the world on my home network? I can always unblock a specific IP if needed, but chances are that will never happen.
My kids aren't old enough for computers yet, but I'm mostly of the mindset that a whitelist or curated offline cache (at least for anything on the web) is the sanest approach for younger kids. Outside of .gov, .edu, a handful of discussion forums, and stuff not relevant to them like shopping/banking, there's honestly not a lot of utility to the web. If they end up interested in programming, reference material can be kept offline, libraries downloaded through a proxy repository, etc.
Im hosting my site on an IP in the US, just because it was the best hosting option. If the US laws change so that either a) I am liable or b) the hosting provider wont host me. Then of course I would have to move to another, non US, provider. And I wouldn’t be alone so the U.S internet would probably be a lot smaller than it is now.
You need to add Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, etc to that list to actually achieve what you set out to accomplish. Which then does more harm than what you’re trying to prevent.
He’ll realistically the US doesn’t make the cut either.
Why? Concretely, what would I be trying to allow in Japan? Don't they mostly communicate in Japanese anyway? The US has things like local government, schools, businesses, clubs, organizations, etc. Because the US is where we live. That makes it inconvenient to default block the US. Australia has what that is relevant to us? I don't see any .au in my browser history. Or .jp. Or .ca. There is some ac.uk, granted, but that could probably be kept to a small whitelist. I highly doubt anyone would notice for years if ever if I blocked Japan or Australia. It's a near certainty that no one would notice if I blocked all non-English parts of the web.
Are US organizations hosting in Canada for some reason? They probably wouldn't go further than that for latency reasons.
There's the separate problem of foreign companies having US points of presence, but assuming these laws expand, I'd imagine that would eventually lead to liability for services like cloudflare providing the endpoint/hosting on US soil.
I assume you buy some non US products and many .com address are hosted outside the US by non US companies.
Gigabyte.com for example makes a great deal of computer parts like graphics cards and it’s hosted at 103.130.100.144 which geolocates to Taiwan, Province of China.
bmw.com 160.46.226.165 Germany
Now some of them will route US users to US servers to lower their ping, but that’s an added expense that not everyone pays for.
[deleted]
Several things:
1. In the offline world, the child and media provider are in the same physical location, subject to the same laws. On the internet, they're in different places. This is central, as the argument by SCOTUS seems to be that the most restrictive law anywhere applies everywhere.
2. I don't think "just" is a silly instruction. Your child can do any number of things and we expect parents to have a certain amount of oversight and/or involvement to help children navigate it. I don't see how the internet is any different from anything else.
3. There's an important difference between a child entering a store or library and finding a page on the internet. Entering a store, library, or physical home, or whatever, presupposes a certain amount of effort involved in entering the premises, and that the owner of the store or whatever is present and can in fact monitor each visitor easily; on the internet it's a matter of linking from one text to another. Sometimes I don't think you can draw analogies easily, and this is one of those cases. To me it's less like requiring an ID for purchase of a media item within a store, and more like having ID requirements to view something in a public square, or having ID requirements to publish the media item in the first place. It's a bit like SCOTUS saying "if you publish a book in state X where it's legal, but state Y requires a publisher to be responsible for monitoring every purchaser of their book everywhere, then you have to comply with state Y."
For what it's worth, I think its absurd to have legal age requirements for speech, offline or online.
Nitpick: currently in the US, most public libraries do not regulate anyone, of any age, from reading “adult” books.
They wont allow minors to take out porn. Simply, they wont and it would be illegal for them.
Calvin and Hobbs, the comic strip, has been banned in Tennessee schools on the grounds that it had pornography in the form of Calvin's naked butt being in some cells.
What is adult content? A cartoon butt? A book on breastfeeding? "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it" has led to Calvin and Hobbs being banned.
I think the point they were making is that a child can walk into a library, pick up any book, and open it. All without any adults being in the loop. They can do that today.
Yeah, and my point is that the "pick up any book" thing is hiding the fact that selection is in fact seriously limited.
And second, underaged kids can not checkout non kid material without adult in the loop. That part is simply not true, the librarian will say no to the child or ask for parents permission.
> hiding the fact that selection is in fact seriously limited
If your goal is "prevent children from accessing adult material", it really isn't that limited.
> underaged kids can not checkout non kid material without adult in the loop
They don't need to. They can read it in the library; that's what libraries are for.
You can read a book without taking it out.
Meaning anyone taller than 4’ can reach tedious essays about porn.
What public libraries have porn?
Or is it the pearl clutching where a novel with a same-sex kiss is smut? What about all of the graphic acts that happen in the Bible?
10 year old me definitely checked out the Clan of the Cavebear books and similar from my local library, no one cared.
My idea of a hot date was looking up dirty words in the unabridged dictionary.
> I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works.
From a different angle: many people went into the web in disagreement with how the physical world is managed.
Those who were good at politics also tried to improve the offline rules, but not everyone can.
From that POV, opposing the application of irl biggotery into the online world isn't some illogical or whimsical move. They tried to make a better world for the likes of them, and in a way you're using the success of the platform to explain why they're not welcome anymore.
I'd be sympathetic to your logic if it was for the betterment of the online world, but IMHO it surely isn't and we're looking at bullies expanding irl power to crush other platforms as well.
RE Point 1. All it takes is one of those other peers' parents to allow them to view pornography and then that kid just becomes the porn-distributor for the school, just like some kids in my day passed around porno mags. In essence, nothing changes for the kids, but every single adult is at best inconvenienced and at worst at risk of government invasion of their privacy. Not worth doing, imo.
RE Point 2. They could just use a whitelist instead of a blacklist/filter. They exist already, after all. Fill it up with sites showing the wholesome version of the world you want your child exposed to and they can only visit those places.
Yeah this is the thing everyone here seems to ignore. The moment someone does age verification and downloads a file the whole thing falls apart.
You would have to lock down any electronics device that can be used to bypass the restrictions. In reality the best way to do this is to build a screen based nudity filter into the device, which is not only more effective, it exposes this whole nonsense as an attempt to grow the police state.
The fundamental problem—and it's a big one—is that in the physical world, age verification does not result in a centralized log of when and where I was, and what I did. If I buy cigarettes I show my paper id to some dude and then buy smokes. It's transient with no record (except the fallible memory of the bloke doing the ID check).
This is not true for the proposed age verification schemes for the internet and that is a big problem. Unless this is solved, these schemes deserve every level of resistance we can muster.
That's not even universally true, though. I've been to bars where they scan the barcode on my drivers' license. I assume that's more convenient than reading the data off it, so maybe they're just doing it for convenience and aren't storing the data anywhere, but who knows, maybe they are. Maybe there's a database somewhere with a list of name, date, time, location tuples for some of my bar visits from years ago. Creepy.
Yeah, grocery stores swipe ids too. Thankfully I’m too old, they don’t ask. Have to teach kids to not allow it. Definitely stored.
Pot shops in legal states are compiling databases with their compliance CRM systems.
Pot industry needs to anonymize their customer records or stop using SaaS packaged solutions.
Now if China hacks Meadows or something, they have customer and purchase lists which may include security cleared personnel who can now be blackmailed.
If you run a pot shop, or an SaaS solution for them like Meadows, you really have to figure out how to divorce customer PII from purchases.
I am back to the black market in Oregon for this reason!
If we cannot handle age verification then WTF are we doing as an industry? Seriously? Everyone else is able to figure it out! Why are all the genius innovators so powerless to build a working system? They're either stupid or greedy IMO.
We can’t do it because our priority as an industry is to get data to monetise. Anonymity is a bug, not a feature.
Age verification is easy. Age verification that leaves no record, is anonymous, and not circumvent-able is difficult. In the physical world it relies on the fallibility of human memory. No such luck with replicated databases.
An id card is a bearer token.
You can get an anonymous, cryptographically signed, certified legal bearer token confirming your age only, or identity or whatever by a centralized service, be it government or high trust private organizations who need to verify your identity anyway like banks. With some smarts you can probably make such a token yourself so the root bearer token issuer doesn’t have the one you use to browse pornhub.
Which inevitably can be deanonymized after a simple law change, mandating the required data to be reported.
Site generates random key
Key and verification passed to verifier
Verified list is published
Site pulls list and checks its number has been verified
Site doesn’t know who it is, and verifier doesn’t know which site was verified against
Break the key in half.
Otherwise, why wouldn’t I just try the last entries from that list?
They key would be hashed with the user’s details (ip address, value in a session cookie etc) so someone else can’t reuse it. Hell there are things like elliptic curves and DH which still seem magic to me.
Now sure if the identity provider and the site work together they could negate the anonymity, but given that for the identity provider anonymisation would be the key selling feature they wouldn’t want to risk that. Mullvad I’m sure would be trustworthy enough.
How do you prove that the generated key by the site is actually randomly generated? I certainly don't trust a random porn site to do this right.
If the verified list is tied against identity, there is only a simple law change required to de-anonymize everything.
Doesn’t really matter surely, you only need to trust the identity provider not to leak your identity and your porn provider not to have a key that your identity provider can link to.
...Who is accurately and reliably doing age verification online?
How can you guarantee that the credential you're getting belongs to the actual person on the other side of the screen?
> I'd also like to separate the logistics from the morality here. If you believe it's hard to do it without satisfying privacy concerns, totally true! But then the focus should be on finding a good privacy-respecting solution, not just arguing for the status quo.
I like this point. I feel like the tech community just figured politicians would forget about the issue. Instead of working together to develop a solution.
Are you assuming the "tech community" doesn't have the right to argue this on morality and thus refuse to provide technical means ?
No. The tech community absolutely has the right to refuse to provide technical means and argue any views they want.
However we're seeing what happens next. Politicians write laws anyway forcing the tech community to do what they want.
I am just saying that in hindsight a bit of cooperation may have resulted in a less privacy invasive solution. I guess with the supreme court ruling it's too late now. The politicians have already won.
You're correct, and all the arguments against it simply boil down to "but we can't guarantee a perfect solution so therefore we shouldn't even try".
> can "just" enumerate every inappropriate site even if it employed a full-time staff who did nothing but add new sites to the list all day long.
That's also an argument against an id verification mechanism then, the list of sites to block who don't implement one will be infinite.
> allow any child to wander in and check out books showing super explicit porn
As far as I'm aware, online sites generally don't let children wander in either. One of the reasons being they will make a mess of the cabling.
That's obviously in jest, but the point is that physical presence is the entire crux here. When entering a physical space, you do so with a physical body that society has demanded be able to be identified. And age can often be determined without even fully verifying identification, which is why our society has been so accepting of age checks.
The Internet has flourished precisely because of the foundation where one does not need to be identified. In fact one does not even need to be human, nor accessing a digital service the way the publisher intends. Separation of concerns. This has worked for what, 30 years at this point? An entire generation? If parents are still buying their kids hardcore pornography terminals these days, they've got no one to blame but themselves. And no, I do not care that "everybody else is doing it".
Ultimately, the "logistics" cannot be separated from the "morality" - it is a different type of space, and the moral thing to do is engage with it as it is, instead of demanding centralizing authoritarian changes.
These demands are from a narrow contingent of people that could straightforwardly build their own desired environment (the content blocking you've referenced as a straw man, or more accurately kid-friendly content curation), but yet have not done so. Because ultimately these types of calls are never actually about "the kids" but rather a general desire to insert themselves as morality police into everyone's business.
I would say the best option, if there absolutely must be age verification etc., would be to have a registry of sites that comply with all regulations and by default devices shouldn't access sites off that list. Basically a giant allolist for verified good sites. The internet is already effectively shrunk to less than a dozen sites for regular users, so this won't impact them, and the rest of us can have real free speech and unregulated internet back by switching DNS servers or some similar trivial change.
Or we move everything not meant for the sanitised internet to TOR hidden services.
A bit of a rant on the topic of digital supervision and age verification:
Speaking personally, parent supervision was detrimental to my development as a child. I recently reached the liberation of legal adulthood. While my parents are often sweet, their intents did not always have the desired consequences given how they were enforced. Until I was around 15, I didn't have any computer I was able to freely tinker with, which wasn't constantly supervised and constantly logged my every action. I wasn't allowed to touch a shell. This was troublesome for me, because I was a computer science enthusiast, and my parent did not want me to learn about programming. If I had developer tools open, or if it seemed like I was running a script, I would get questions. I was pretty much restricted to using Scratch (which has a fantastic underground community!). Yes, I spent quite a bit of time on my computer. In my defense, I didn't have any friends where I lived. Not that I didn't want any, I had tried, but at this point I was torted by bad experiences. My computer was my safe haven and where I had my friends. I did try to explain this, but my parent wasn't sympathetic. Expecting a joyous and present individual who should be out playing with friends, I was a failure. My parent never understood my need for digital freedom, even as it in hindsight was all I craved. This is the type of scenario I see playing out again every time I am reached by bills/news/opinions like these. If my parent had put half of the energy they use to keep me bound into supporting my personal development and our relation, things could have been very different. Instead, I became very good at avoiding filters, supervision and going unnoticed. It's quite a sore to me. I sympathise deeply with all the children who had a similar upbringing, who are going to suffer under the regulations in development, both in the US and in the EU.
Obviously, there’s a difference between access to programming materials and the unethical majority of the internet.
I had access to the former at about 12 but no access to the internet until age ~23. Was about perfect.
When did you grow up?
Why is the comment downvoted so much? Am GenX.
Not having access to the internet during childhood 30-40 years ago is very different than not having access to the internet as a child now.
I think most people are taking your description of your experience being positive as a recommendation - one that is very unrealistic in modern times.
That Tennessee law is particularly crazy:
> (a) Pubic hair, vulva, vagina, penis, testicles, anus, or nipple of a human body
Naked bodies do not harm anyone. This is US puritanism at its peek. Glad the author also pointed out the hypocrisy of treating nudity as more obscene than violence.
Interestingly (and I suppose fairly?) the law doesn't seem to make a distinction between male and female nipples. So an image of a shirtless man violates this just as much as an image of a shirtless woman.
I'd imagine that male nipples are exempted due to the line that mentions "applying contemporary community standards".
Of course, that wording is deliberately vague for a reason. Judges, especially conservative ones, have often let states use wording like that to get away with female-toplessness bans, blue laws, religious imagery in government buildings, etc, since that kind of wording lets them avoid including discriminatory language in the law itself, therefore supposedly not violating the constitution.
I also noticed that! Certainly speaks of the intelligence of the people who write these laws :)
As the OP gets at halfway through:
> Republicans are now labeling anything and everything that has to do with sex, and LGBT+ issues, as “pornography” and “obscene” and “harmful to minors.”
The pornography ban is a red herring. These people will never actually ban pornography, because they consume pornography. Any "ban" they may impose will always conveniently ignore their consumption of pornography they deem personally acceptable.
The real goal is (re)criminalizing the LGBTQ+ demographic. SCOTUS has been chipping away at those old laws for decades, much to the chagrin of people whose power comes from harming LGBTQ+ persons/treating them as scapegoats. It's why these newer laws are so vague, and why they allow cross-state civil actions: it's to criminalize LGBTQ+ people wholesale, and shove them all back into a closet somewhere.
If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not, because it's not about pornography. It's about sharing HRT tips with trans youth, it's about saying "gay is okay" on a personal website. It's about associating anything other than heterosexuality with "porn", criminalizing it, and thus criminalizing the populace.
Full stop.
One of the key tenants of fasicsm is laws that protect the in group, but does not bind them, and laws that bind the out group but does not protect them.
In other words, rules for thee, but not for me.
Everyone needs to be familair with the 14 points of fascism. https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
Tenets.
A tenant is somebody who has a lease, for example to an apartment or one of those big metal sheds for a supermarket, and by analogy, customers of something like Microsoft's "Entra ID" (what was "Azure Active Directory" at least the new name is less confusing)
A tenet is a belief or principle that you believe in absolutely, I think we'd say that this "protects but does not bind / binds but does not protect" idea isn't a tenet of Fascism but instead an observable trait.
[deleted]
Thank you for that, I've been looking for a decent pre-AI/Non-wikipedia summary like that. Unsurprisingly but depressingly, at least 13 out of 14 points are a perfect match.
Well, jury is still out on #14…
Gerry and Mander told me to say hi.
(Seriously, gerrymandering, redistricting weaponization, bribery/campaign contributions, and the like are all forms of election corruption.)
[flagged]
In agreement, just to nitpick a single point:
> These people will never actually ban pornography, because they consume pornography.
Banning porn won't affect them: mainstream porn will find a way (dealing with rulings will just be a cost of business).
And more than anything, making it technically illegal allows for selective enforcement, which means a lot more power for them to decide who wins and who loses.
The obscene things in the Bible should be banned as well. Have their cake and eat it. Scan an ID that you are 18 to view the Bible.
Bible as a whole should be banned, same as religion or at least the “old” religion. Worshiping things. This is what I legitimately don’t understand in 2025
This is not the gotcha people think it is. Bible thumpers only pay attention to a few sections of the new testament anyways.
Indeed. They prefer the brutal Old Testament God instead.
Which is funny because Biblical scholars have been pretty clear that the coming of Jesus wipes out all that stuff. It is called the New Covenant.
They would be really mad if they actually read the statements Jesus said about greed.
They hate the parts about loving their neighbors, being non violent, and favoring spiritual wealth over material wealth. All of those are anathema to current evangelical followers and christo-fascists that are strongly represented in MAGA
Nope. Phyllis Schlafly's son Andrew (Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality) ran (still runs maybe?) a web site where among other things he "re-translates" the Bible so that e.g. Jesus's preaching is "Properly" translated to mean whatever it is suits his worldview.
Religion is about believing things you have no evidence for, that's its whole thing.
> Phyllis is the woman who more or less single handedly ensured the ERA didn't pass, persuading American women that somehow they didn't even want equality
There is a series on Disney+ about this, "Mrs America". Worth watching.
It happened a few times https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363
The Great Bible Battle
Let's state it even more plainly: It's about being able to criminalize anything they don't like. Laying infrastructure for surveillance and censorship; an effort which has taken many forms and attempts through the decades.
Ironically, it's the same right wing folks who so vehemently resist effective computerization of gun registration info, because of how they believe such systems can be abused.
These people will never actually ban pornography,
That's what I used to say about Roe v. Wade. "They'll never give up that wedge issue."
They never banned abortions for themselves, just made it more difficult to get if you’re not getting an “acceptable” one (i.e. have the money to go where it’s legal or have a private family doctor who can make Bastard Fetus go bye-bye).
You can see how this model worked in Ireland for example.
Historically Abortion was literally prohibited constitutionally in the Republic. That changed†, one of my friends lived there at the time and she's got a picture somebody made (painted? sketched?) on her wall of the group watching the results come in. But for most of my life, abortion was absolutely illegal in the Republic of Ireland.
So, if you were poor, too bad no abortions, they're illegal. But if you're wealthy you just decide to "go on holiday", maybe a long weekend somewhere nice - and miraculously while abroad you stop being pregnant. No problem
†https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_...
> much to the chagrin of people whose power comes from harming LGBTQ+ persons/treating them as scapegoats.
To their "chagrin?" Huh? The meaning of the word is the opposite of whatever you're trying to communicate, I think.
> These people will never actually ban pornography
Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.
> If this was actually about porn on the internet, they'd be demanding Playboy get shut down, or PornHub. They're not
...
You have it backwards, Pornhub preemptively blocked access based on geolocation before the bills even passed.
So Pornhub hates money and traffic?
Of course not. Pornhub blocked these IP because they knew it was going to be (and is now) illegal in those states, at least at its current form. I see it no different from said states banning Pornhub.
Pornhub did it in protest[1], hope this helps.
[1] https://www.abc4.com/news/tech-social-media/pornhub-blocks-a...
The bills still passed so what's your point? The protest failed.
That you have it backwards, because you do. Pornhub preemptively blocked states that were considering implementing ID rules, and states are not actively blocking Pornhub.
You don't seem to grasp the argument.
From above:
> These people will never actually ban pornography
> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay
You then say, well actually they weren't blocked by the states, they were blocked by the sites themselves to protest a bill that passed.
The issue is this clarification is totally irrelevant given the context of the above comment.
The root comment claims in this domain, the right wing is targeting "anything other than heterosexuality". Not sure what their evidence of that claim is. I would think anyone with even a basic familiarity re the right-wing American culture warrior would know this isn't the case. They are simply following the standard far right modus operandi, which is to start their cultural attack on the most vulnerable at the margins where it is easiest.
Similarly, passing age verification is essentially a strategy to enact an effective ban, because it is a demand that cannot be met and is easier to pass than an outright ban. So the comment suggesting it's not serious to suggest this is simply or _only_ about "anything other than heterosexuality" is correct, or at least, not impeached by your conclusion they have it backwards by essentially hyperfocusing on some rather irrelevant pornsite protest tactic which entirely misses the point. If anything, the fact they passed the bills after the self initiated “bans” simply bolsters the rejoinder to the root comment.
Here's the OP I'm responding to:
> Not sure how one can say that with a straight face when there are US states that literally block pornhub, but okay.
Note the word "literally" in the statement that US state are literally blocking Pornhub.
That is not the case. Pornhub blocked the states preemptively, not the other way around.
Hope this helps.
I get it and yes, you are technically correct that they are not "literally blocking" it. I just hope you can also see where I'm coming from. In context of the larger comment thread your reply felt like a nitpick that missed the point, and focused on that nitpick to the detriment of the larger point of that OP, which imo has some merit. Or at least some merit you didn't address. But I understand you are correct on this particular point. As a suggestion, maybe next time you could reply more as providing context rather than seeming to suggest their entire take was "backwards". Thanks for replying.
Thanks. Can't put it as eloquently myself.
Note that pornography is not banned here in Texas at least. You just have to provide age verification, and PH elected not to participate in that process. It doesn’t seem like that wild a thing at face value.
Breaking news: VPN stocks skyrocket.
[deleted]
You’re right that they consume porn, but plenty of them still want to ban it, and not just because of LGBTQ. It’s all about moralistic virtue signaling by immoral people.
The irony of course are stats like these.
From "Data Finds Republicans are Obsessed with Searching for Transgender Porn"[1]:
> So far in 2022, more than 300 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed across 36 states – at least one third of which are directed at trans youth. This surge, especially in anti-trans legislation from Republicans, stands in stark contrast to a startling fact.
> Republicans love transgender porn, a lot.
> With more than 4.7 Million transgender porn related Google searches each month (per Ahrefs.com), do Republicans represent those searching most? The answer seems to be a clear yes.
[1] https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsessio...
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Nobody should be sharing insulin “tips” with other people’s children?
Do you apply this rule to all medications, or just ones you’re offended by?
Setting aside trans issues - plenty of non-trans kids are in hormones or puberty blockers for a wide variety of reasons. Should they be blocked from discussing them online?
One treatment saves lives, other “treatment” essentially shortens your lifespan, and most likely causing you to never have kids again. How are people ok with this I don’t get it and how are people ok with letting KIDS making such life changing decision is I don’t get too.
Given how many trans kids commit suicide when prevented from transitioning, i’d say both save lives. And that’s why i’m ok with it. Because going on puberty blockers until you’re 18 seems like a very non-invasive way to thread the needle of patient care for minors
The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion."
Do you have any counter-evidence?
Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard.
Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7
Yes: the cass review is very badly done and misinterprets the data available.
So you have no counter evidence?
If you actually wanted counter evidence I'm sure you could find it yourself. There's enough of it out there.
So, what is it that you're actually looking for?
>One treatment saves lives, other “treatment” essentially shortens your lifespan, and most likely causing you to never have kids again.
The older I get, the more I understand people who prefer quality of life, over longevity.
I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.
Made in good faith. And HRT is very rarely given to minors. The standard of care is puberty blockers until their 18.
Question about your good faith:
Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty
Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.
Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.
I agree, but it can go too far as well. It's not healthy for children to be limited to knowing only their parents' and the government's opinions on serious topics. There has to be a balance between avoiding indoctrination and being aware of brain development schedule.
I somewhat agree, but exposure to global online content is hardly natural in terms of brain development.
> since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.
So should everyone under the age of 25 (roughly when your brain becomes fully developed) be prohibited from talking about any kind of medical treatment?
Also, how do you expect people to develop critical thinking skills if they’re never presented with challenging concepts or, you know, required to think critically about things?
And if doctors develop treatment plans for trans children its ok?
I mean at least you’re consistent - even if you want to ban diabetics from chatting about their care online.
[flagged]
I can guess which, and I implore you to do some reading from actual medical professionals and groups on this.
And if you’re still opposed to it, the solution is regulation - not criminalization.
> I implore you to do some reading from actual medical professionals and groups on this.
Reading their comment charitably, one might want the trans youth to also get their information from actual medical professionals and groups rather than random internet strangers.
Analogously, sharing information about DIY at-home abortions with people on the internet is also dangerous as hell and will hurt people. In the world we currently live in it may be better than the alternative, but in a better world both of those are not pieces of information that anyone should need to find online.
I think your comment would be well served by adding some reasons why.
Because kids are impressionable and easily manipulated.
It's why there is an age of consent that no kid can waive.
It's why kids aren't allowed to do lots of things, like vote, drive, drink etc.
There needs to be a compelling reason to make an exception for one politically charged thing that comes with irreversible physical changes.
There also needs to be a compelling reason why that decision cannot be deferred until age of majority.
the child can't consent to medical procedures without a parent, today, and if the parent says no, the decision is deferred until the age of majority.
> he child can't consent to medical procedures without a parent, today, and if the parent says no, the decision is deferred until the age of majority.
What does the parent's opinion have to do with it? Their opinion is equally ignored when it comes to statutory rape, no?
This is not a "this is a private matter between the child and the parent" scenario. Some things are, but a clear majority of people do not feel that this should be one of those things.
Convincing and teaching minore to synthesize hormones which will chemically castrate themselves / make them infertile and cause permanent non reversible damage to their bodies, how to use those hormones, how to hide it from their parents. These are all bad things, and the people who do so should be in prison. If I taught kids how to make weapons secretly and told them to use them, I would go to jail.
It appears you and I have different definitions of “sharing HRT tips”.
Because kids are highly impressionable and have limited ability to make sound judgements?
Because youths don't have developed critical thinking skills and HRT is an invasive medical treatment!?
Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.
Zero kids are getting HRT without their parents consent, don’t spread transphobic FUD
It's not about the kids of their parents, it's about other parties that are promoting or encouraging HRT to other people's kids.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I urge all American software engineers not just to completely ignore these unconstitutional laws, but to actively create, distribute and maintain technologies which defend Americans' rights to publish obscene filth without government oversight.
If the Supreme Court agrees they are constitutional then they clearly are constitutional, unless you think the constitution doesn’t apply
The Supreme Court considered internment camps and segregation constitutional, until it didn’t.
There are also people who disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretations. Including members of the Supreme Court! Both current (dissents) and not (overturning past rulings.)
> The Constitution of the United States was a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-constituti...
The Supreme Court is not the ultimate decider of what the layman's document means. It was wrong when it decided, for instance, Plessy v. Ferguson. The law that the Court upheld patently violated the Fourteenth Amendment and was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was simply wrong.
It can both be wrong and the ultimate decider.
We've drifted pretty far from the Constitution and what the Founders envisioned.
The reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause was the start of a downward spiral.
I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.
> I'm hoping the Convention of States will succeed and fix this, even if it means rebuilding many institutions at the State level.
Amendments proposed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 38 states. That's a pretty high bar for what you're suggesting.
>the Convention of States
when will that happen?
When at least 34 states call for a constitutional convention. Potentially as early as this year if at least 15 of the 21 states with proposed legislation enact the laws which call for a convention (currently 19 states have enacted laws which call for a convention). Thirty-eight states would need to ratify any proposed amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendmen...
Let's not pretend that the current federal government isn't completely compromised.
Not really. The Supreme Court believes some rulings to be wrong the day they were decided:
> “The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: *Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided*, has been overruled in the court of history, and to be clear ‘has no place in law under the Constitution,’” Roberts said, quoting Justice Jackson’s 1944 dissent.
If Mommy says I can't eat carrots because they are bad for me, I have to listen to her. But I don't have to listen to her because she's right, it's because she's mommy.
Quiet frankly I don't give a shit what a judge says is constitutional when they are acting in direct opposition to the stated goals of the constitution and I don't think anybody else should either. I believe the Founding Fathers both expected and wanted people to stand up in defiance against legal rulings and laws that many find unjust, even to the point of violence after some time. The Constitution starts with "We the People", which means if the people don't agree then the judges are wrong and should be opposed in every aspect.
The US legal system has gone out of control and it is getting to the point where people need to defy the law as a matter of principle and fight for their rights. The preamble of the constitution is pretty clear in its general goals, and working against the people's will, restricting the peoples rights, committing what the people believe are injustices, and causing social turmoil among them, are all blatantly opposed.
Why would I dedicate time to improving lives of people who actively want to destroy themselves?
Two hundred and fifty years of jurisprudence would suggest there has never been a right to obscenity.
[deleted]
Two-hundred and fifty years of piwertripping lawyers with their heads up their own asses, ignoring the plain text of the constitution.
No thanks, I'm not going to work on technology to enable the publishing of "obscene filth".
Tor might be wildly popular in a few years.
Tor doesn't protect against traffic correlation last I checked.
Mixnets/Nym are better for actual privacy.
(I've not audited Nym, not an endorsement)
Tor over DAITA? Especially with multihop over multiple non-cooperating legislators.
> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online
I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a locked-down “second internet” for minors.
But I do understand the impetus. As a zoomer, I’ve heard the problems particularly young men addicted to pornography have caused with some gal friends of mine they’ve dated. I’ve seen the normalization of what I view as degenerate sex acts as the treadmill of endlessly-escalating erotic-novelism spins without ceasing. I’ve watched people become more absorbed in their strange autosexual fixations than their spouses. It doesn’t seem good, or healthy, or sustainable, and I resent the contributions the proliferation of online pornography has made to these issues.
At some level I see this like sixties versus modern marijuana, where a more mild herb (or dad’s playboys beneath the mattress) has been supplanted by THC distilled and bottled into vapes (endlessly-available presence of any outlandish fetishistic stuff.) I wouldn’t like my child exposed to either but I can live with one.
Of course, I see it as primarily the parent’s responsibility to inculcate the virtue to disdain both. The state can’t nanny its way out of this one. But it’s always easier to pick a scapegoat that can’t vote (tax the corporations/rich, make the corporations implement age-filtering, etc.) than to tell people to take a hike and learn to parent.
You might not be pushing for it, but certainly your fellow conservative Christians are.
The problem with moralistic thinking is that it's stupid and it blows up, and we've known this for hundreds of years. What you view as moral means fuck-all. I don't particularly care if you think something is degenerate, and in fact by using a term like degenerate I respect you less as a person.
So when morals are used as the sole reason to justify law, we have a problem. Morals were used to justify slavery. To justify a lack of suffrage. To justify legal domestic abuse.
What's changed since then? Time. The passage of time. But time does not stop. Where will we be in 10 years, or 20? Progressing forward, ideally, but that's not a guarantee. We're laying the ground work for abuse.
For a large part of the American constituency, anything containing homosexuals is degenerate pornography. Right now. So if "it's pornography" is our justification, we have a problem.
I think we agree that said laws are bad, but why they're bad matters. The wider-scale implication is that moralistic law making is bad. Listening to Christians and having them come up with laws based on their personal beliefs is bad. Appealing to the American purity culture is bad. This is all ripe for abuse.
No, some of them are. More evangelicals than my crowd.
Morality bears directly on what we consider to be a just society, so I don’t care if you don’t care. You’re broadening the scope beyond this particular issue, where I’m guessing I agree with you.
It’s not virtuous to act right because the state makes you, but the question of what we require and preclude is defined by our moral frameworks at some level.
I’m not sure with whom you’re arguing about the homosexuals point. I view a lot of things of degenerate I wouldn’t ban. Most adults I see are fat, thus gluttons, thus are committing a sin. It’s just not particularly my business to meddle in what’s between them and God and Satan. I didn’t suggest we “retvrn to Comstock” or something.
I don’t see how you can ignore the massively negative effects pornography has on mostly young men, particularly if you think about the marijuana analogy and how it’s increased in strength and availability. Novel hyperstimuli are a big issue. Just like supernormal stimuli tend to increase obesity and cause metabolic dysfunction.
A ton of lawmaking is moralistic. Eg the way I grew up I think it’s fine for two guys to settle something with a fight provided it’s clean and nobody’s kicking someone when he’s down. A bunch of people with different morals (“all violence is wrong”) told the cops to start arresting people for that sort of thing. I think stealing is wrong and vote to tell the cops to arrest people for that, while others (because of their morality) say that “it’s systemic factors” and turn people loose for sub-$1k or so, or sometimes don’t believe in property rights the same way I do. I don’t believe that income tax is just, nor federally-administered welfare, but a ton of people voted to tell the feds to take money and do just that.
I’m not sure how you can suddenly flip to “moralistic legislation is wrong actually” in such a selective sense just because it’s movitated by Christianity or right-wing ideology for once.
> I don’t see how you can ignore the massively negative effects pornography has on mostly young men
I ignore it because I've only ever gotten responses of morality. Which, as I've said, I think are stupid.
My point about morality is that it's the same morality that oppresses homosexuals, or previously black people and women. It's not a different morality - it's the same reasoning.
Some thing is immoral because of our beliefs, so we censor it or restrict actions. Throughout history, this has only gone poorly - no exceptions. I have no reason to believe it will work out this time.
You might say, "well it hasn't always gone poorly, what about murder?" Yes, murder has morality argument, but it doesn't only have morality arguments. It has real-world effects. It denies someone of their unalienable rights, mainly by ending their lives.
Pornography only has moral arguments, which is why I reject them.
Come one man, it would be trivial for me to credibly argue that your religion has given scores of young men an absolutely dysfunctional relation to sexuality, woman, their own body, etc. Anyone could make that case as easily as your case about pornography (arguably with more proof in my case). Should we legislate both the same way?
Yes, but "his religion" is over 2000 years old and has found ways to reform itself many times to re-centre itself towards the core teachings of Jesus Christ, namely compassion and piety. The Christians who sold indulgencies are not the Christians who burned witches are not the Christians who help those in need. It has existed for twenty centuries across continents and anyone who can corrupt it effectively wields the power of God. Of course it has been used as justification for heinous acts. Pretty much anything that has existed that long and is that powerful has been used that way.
It is irrational to hate the entire religion because of select elements, past or present. You are in effect committing the same act of hatred you are accusing Christians of.
> massively negative effects pornography has on mostly young men
Can you provide any source for this?
I don’t need a source to back up what I’ve consistently observed with my own eyes, and given the speed at which research sometimes move (and particularly since any concern over perceived “sexual liberation” attacks one of the sacred cows of progressivism) being a young guy who can see this firsthand gives me a pretty good perspective.
I’ve read research on this in the past that suggests it can happen. Hard to get people to fess up to that kind of thing for obvious reasons so measuring scope as a research endeavor is a little harder.
I know the research is there and has been if you’re actually interested, but I’m traveling without a laptop for the next bit and so don’t have it saved. If you’d just like to take a cheap shot because my reply (which talked about what I have observed) wasn’t eighteen peer-reviewed studies, go ahead, I guess.
> I don’t need a source…
Yikes dude.
> …to back up what I’ve consistently observed with my own eyes
People have observed everything UFOs and demons to ivermectin curing their COVID. None of it is real but yet people continue to swear up and down on these things gs.
> ...given the speed at which research sometimes move
Filling in knowledge gaps with imagination is not a substitute for actual data. Ever.
> and particularly since any concern over perceived “sexual liberation” attacks one of the sacred cows of progressivism
Hard disagree. You yourself can go study human psychology and sexuality then perform studies. If you can assemble real data the scientific community would be forever grateful for your contributions. The real barrier is not “liberals”, it’s that it takes years upon years of hard work to get there. Unlike your comment, which is backed up by “my own eyes”.
> I know the research is there and has been if you’re actually interested
Leading with “I don’t need citations”, then promising that they’re “totally there” at the bottom doesn’t really sit right with me.
Anyways, it’s not the role of the state to legislate morality. That always ends poorly. If porn is bad for kids, then parents need to step up. Maybe the state could offer resources for parents - I’m not opposed to that. If it’s bad for adults, they those with chronic habits should seek help.
Slavery is much worse for kids than porn. But you're cool with your own religion and the bible condoning slavery because you're never seen a slave?
An extensive collection of Bible verses which prove that Christianity endorses slavery:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/pg2pyp/an_extensiv...
>I recently read "Slavery: Scriptural and Statistical" by Thornton Stringfellow.
https://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html
>In it, he makes a very compelling argument that the Bible not only endorses, but instructs slavery. Each time I came upon a reference, I read the context of the several chapters surrounding it. Below you will find a list of these Biblical references organized chronologically. Alongside each there is a short description of what the reference says. [...]
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
What is modern slavery?
You might think that slavery is a thing of the past. But right now, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide.
It’s a problem that affects every country on earth – including yours.
“We were only there to work. It felt like I was in jail.” – Laboni, Nepal
In many ways, slavery may look different from the slavery of the Transatlantic slave trade, but modern slavery – as a term – encompasses many forms of slavery, including human trafficking and people being born into slavery.
There are hundreds of definitions of modern slavery. All of these include aspects of control, involuntary actions and exploitation.
At Anti-Slavery International, we define modern slavery as when an individual is exploited by others, for personal or commercial gain. Whether tricked, coerced, or forced, they lose their freedom. This includes but is not limited to human trafficking, forced labour and debt bondage.
Our mission is to stop slavery – to secure freedom for everyone, everywhere, always.
Unlock freedom: Stand up for human rights and fight modern slavery in 2025.
Join the movement today: Modern slavery is all around us, often hidden in plain sight. People can become enslaved making our clothes, serving our food, picking our crops, working in factories, or working in houses as cooks, cleaners or nannies. Victims of modern slavery might face violence or threats, be forced into inescapable debt, or have their passport taken away and face being threatened with deportation.
Many people have fallen into this trap because they were trying to escape poverty or insecurity, improve their lives and support their families. Now, they can’t leave.
According to the latest Global Estimates of Modern Slavery (2022) from Walk Free, the International Labour Organization and the International Organization for Migration:
49.6 million people live in modern slavery – in forced labour and forced marriage.
Roughly a quarter of all victims of modern slavery are children.
22 million people are in forced marriages. Two out of five of these people were children.
Of the 27.6 million people trapped in forced labour, 17.3 million are in forced labour exploitation in the private economy, 6.3 million are in commercial sexual exploitation, and nearly 4 million are in forced labour imposed by state authorities.
The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the conditions that lead to modern slavery.
Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to forced labour.
Source: Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage, Geneva, September 2022
> Most adults I see are fat, thus gluttons, thus are committing a sin.
This is not how fatness works.
Some people are genetically predisposed to gaining weight easily. Some people are literally just hungrier and have a higher satiety threshold. This is why "just eat less" is horribly ineffective.
Diet and exercise help but are more Band-Aids than a true long-term fix. Many people gain MORE weight after a period of intense dieting and exercise than before. There's a saying that summarizes this conundrum well: "Nobody knows more about diets than fat people."
I am sure that you mean well, but please understand that this is a very complex topic.
I don't see how you can ignore the massively negative effects slavery has on 50 million people. Your bible condones it. None of your ten commandments prohibit it. Why do you worship and defend a bible that condones slavery, which has destroyed a hell of a lot more lives than pornography has? Your God could add a new commandment prohibiting slavery tomorrow, and should have thousands of years ago, and that could have prevented so much human suffering, including the Civil War.
There are many more slaves today than there ever were in history, so why are you wasting your time obsessing about pornography and homosexuals, when you should be doing something about the slavery that your bible explicitly and frequently condones, and that you God omnisciently and all-powerfully refuses to prohibit. Maybe it's time to ditch all the false pro-slavery gods and bibles and religions, or are you too obsessed with fighting pornography and homos to lift a finger against slavery?
Just what's wrong with your priorities? Do you faithfully believe that it's just not particularly your business to meddle in what’s between slaves and their masters? You pro-slavery bible and religion apologists are a hell of a lot more degenerate and destructive and downright evil than the pornographers and homosexuals you hate so much.
If you look at the goals of christofascists this is really just the beginning of incrementally becoming a theocracy run by them rather than a democracy with a diversity of thoughts and freedoms. That is the antithesis of what they want.
What people do in their private time is none of anyone's business. Period.
Especially the government.
Did something I wrote read like I disagreed with this? What children do in their private time is their parents’ business. What children do can sometimes be the business of the state; there’s tons of precedent for it acting in loco parentis. I just don’t find this to be the best solution.
> I don’t really appreciate this framing.
The framing is objectively accurate. Perhaps you should reconsider the group you identify with.
I come from a small town and know many conservative Christians. They are pushing for this. Like you said, it is easier to blame external sources than to accept you need to do better as parent.
Many of them are. I just don’t see any reason to say “I disagree with the conservative Christians pushing this” rather than “I disagree with the people who support this.” There are secular folks who also support such legislation. It hints at a generalized animus towards religion and likely in particular towards Christianity, kind of like Fox News boomers complaining Obama wouldn’t say “radical Islamic terrorism”.
The majority of people pushing this in the USA are evangelicals who are moving more and more to christofascism over the years. Now they are mixing in government more and more and dropping the traditional values of Christianity and replacing them with fascism and prosperity gospel
People need to understand that there is a radical Christian element trying to impose its beliefs on everyone. They should be called out continuously and especially when they successfully modify any laws, state or federal.
You are not only in denial about Project 2025, but also evolution, and the origin and age of the Earth and other planets and stars, and even the idea that slavery is wrong, if you actually believe what your bible says, which you're supposed to.
You, as a believer, should be policing and reforming your own religion instead of defending and evangelizing it and leaving it to us to clean up the damage to society done by your religion.
How about petitioning the Pope to amend the 10 Commandments to include a prohibition against slavery? Did you ever think of that, or wonder why there wasn't already one? Because your bible says slavery is A-OK, and I don't appreciate this framing of slavery as permissible by your bible.
How about you do something about that, since you're the one who believes it? Or are you cool with slavery since the bible condones it in so many ways, and you appreciate that framing?
Oh but apparently it's much more important to prevent people from worshiping other gods, so that certainly deserved its own Commandment, to justify all those wars and inquisitions you fought against other religions.
There are many more slaves today than ever before in history. What are you doing about adding another commandment against Slavery to your Holier Than Thou Bible, when you're not so busy defending Christianity and attacking homosexuality online?
What is modern slavery?
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
>You might think that slavery is a thing of the past. But right now, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide.
>It’s a problem that affects every country on earth – including yours.
Has it ever occurred to you that a religion whose bible supports slavery is morally bankrupt and definitely not the word of God, and so are you for not either changing it or renouncing that religion? It's all made up and rewritten by people anyway, and even if you believe in God, it's not like he couldn't add an anti-slavery commandment to the bible tomorrow if he wanted to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/pg2pyp/an_extensiv...
Patriarchal Age : the period of time stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's posterity at Mount Sinai
Genesis 9:18-27 -- Noah (the only righteous man on earth) decrees that his son Ham and his descendants shall be slaves. (This is punishment for Ham's crime of seeing his father naked)
Genesis 12:5 -- Abram (God's anointed prophet) purchased slaves in Harran.
Genesis 16:1-9 -- Sarai's slave fled after being mistreated. God's angel instructs her to return and submit to her mistress anyway.
Genesis 17:12-13 -- All males must be circumcised, including those who were bought.
Genesis 20:14 -- Abraham (God's anointed prophet) happily accepts slaves as a gift.
Genesis 47:13-26 -- Joseph purchases the entire population of Egypt for the Pharaoh, making them his servants for life.
Exodus 12:43-45 -- God instructs Moses and Aaron that their slaves may only eat food at the passsover meal after they have been circumcised.
Legal Dispensation : the period of time from the giving of the law until the coming of Christ
Exodus 20:17 -- God provides a list of belongings which are not to be coveted, including servants (implying that they are property).
Exodus 21:2-6 -- Israeli slaves must be set free after 7 years unless you trick them into wanting to stay by giving them a wife.
Exodus 21:7-11 -- How your daughter must be treated after you sell her into slavery.
Exodus 21:20-21 -- You may beat your slaves as long as they do not die within a couple days of the beating.
Exodus 21:26-27 -- You have to let your slave go free if you destroy their eye or knock out one of their teeth.
Exodus 22:2-3 -- A theif must pay restituion. If unable, he himself is to be sold.
Leviticus 19:20-21 -- God tells Moses and Aaron what to do with a man who sleeps with another man's female slave.
Leviticus 22:10-11 -- A priest's hired servant may not eat the sacred offering, but his slaves can.
Leviticus 25:44-46 -- You may buy slaves from the nations around you and bequeath them to your children as inherited property (except if they're Israelites).
Numbers 31 -- After the Israelites conquer the Midianites, Moses orders the execution of everyone except the virgin girls (including the male children). God then instructs Moses on how the 32,000 virgins are to be divvied up and given to the Israelites as their property.
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 -- Free your Hebrew slaves every 6 years. Do not consider this a hardship because their service was worth twice as much as a hired hand.
Deuteronomy 20:10-11 -- When attacking a city, offer them the option of being your slaves rather than being slaughtered.
Joshua 9 -- Joshua "saves" the Gibeonites from being slain by the Israelites. Instead, he makes them slaves to the Israelites in perpetuity.
Gospel Dispensation : the period of time from the coming of Christ to the end of time
Luke 17:7-10 -- Jesus says servants (i.e. slaves) should know their place and not expect thanks for the duties they are required to perform.
Ephesians 6:5-8 -- Slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey Christ.
Colossians 3:22 -- Paul tells the slaves of Colosse to "obey your earthly masters."
Colossians 4:1 -- Paul says masters should be fair to their slaves. (Tacitly endorsing the existence of slaves and masters)
1 Timothy 6:1-2 -- Slaves should consider their masters worthy of full respect.
Titus 2:9-10 -- In his letter, Paul instructs Titus to teach slaves to be obedient.
1 Peter 2:18 -- Slaves, submit to your masters; even the harsh ones.
I understand what you're saying but when you have Trump and his cohorts fake praying in the oval office with the support of conservative Christians who abandon all of Jesus' teachings of love and compassion and embrace Trump's hate, you might understand why people take a specific issue with that.
Would you also understand impetus behind any proposed hypothetical ban on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or anything else that causes harm to the society?
normalization of what I view as degenerate sex acts
Those "degenerate sex acts" were normal enough when the Bible was written that they were included in the Bible.
Most of our ancestors would regard modern Americans as hideously prudish.
Something being normal doesn’t make it right. Obesity is normal. Shoplifting has become normal in many places. People getting drunk is normal. Normalcy doesn’t equal moral rectitude.
Why do the opinions of my ancestors bear on that, and which ones are you talking about? Most of the ones I can think of, unless you run back to the days of tribal europe, would see the culture today as hideously liberalized. Regardless a lot of my ancestors probably did a lot of things I don’t think are right. Heck, I’ve done plenty of things I don’t think are right. None of that effects what actually is and isn’t morally good.
If I’m not running around telling off couples who leave the bar together, what do you care?
Hijacking this comment because it seems to be the most recent. I’d love to start a private email thread with you if you’re willing to do so.
After the previous election, I felt wildly out of touch, and I’ve been trying to find people who I can talk to who might be able to help me improve understanding of my (metaphorical) neighbors. I suspect that our beliefs will be quite different, but I appreciate your willingness to provide long-form, respectful responses to so many comments here.
If you’re up for it, my email is in my profile
You being a normal Christian homophobic bigot doesn't make it right.
Most of the BS from modern christians is a byproduct of the church trying to control every aspect of a person's mind and body rather than being an expansion of their spiritualism. Traditional religion does not like free thinking amongst its worshippers. Puritans were amongst the worst and they have a huge influence on early Americans and their religions.
Alright, you seem receptive to arguments so I'll take a crack at this.
> I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a locked-down “second internet” for minors.
That's not the intent. The intent from the get-go has been to "Baptise" the internet as "God's creation", and to shove out anyone not worthy of God's salvation - as determined by religious leaders. When the initial argument of "the internet is a creation of Satan" didn't work out, the religious leaders in the USA pivoted towards calling it a gift from God and demonizing anyone who "sullied" that gift in their eyes.
> I’ve heard the problems particularly young men addicted to pornography have caused with some gal friends of mine they’ve dated. I’ve seen the normalization of what I view as degenerate sex acts as the treadmill of endlessly-escalating erotic-novelism spins without ceasing. I’ve watched people become more absorbed in their strange autosexual fixations than their spouses. It doesn’t seem good, or healthy, or sustainable, and I resent the contributions the proliferation of online pornography has made to these issues.
Your observations are completely valid. As someone who creates smut (let's just call it what it is), there's a very real problem with people in general getting caught up in fantasies and ignoring reality. However, my observations suggest that pornography is just the convenient scapegoat for a society that constantly markets escapism as entertainment and penalizes anything that doesn't involve spending money. All forms of entertainment have been perverted to maximize chemical responses in humans, in order to sell more stuff. Your beef isn't with pornography so much as it is with the present consumerist hellscape, and a society that demands both spouses work full-time to have a chance at survival rather than balance the needs of the family by allowing every couple to have a spouse stay at home and make the house, if they so choose. Which brings me to your next point...
> At some level I see this like sixties versus modern marijuana, where a more mild herb (or dad’s playboys beneath the mattress) has been supplanted by THC distilled and bottled into vapes (endlessly-available presence of any outlandish fetishistic stuff.) I wouldn’t like my child exposed to either but I can live with one.
That's...man, I want to argue this, but I got nothing. You're basically describing what I did up above, with the proper analogy. As a cannabis user myself, you're entirely correct about the potency and convenient availability being an issue, and I'd absolutely like to see more penalties for physical distribution of these things to minors while also de-glamorizing some of this stuff. Sell the product, not the experience, basically.
> Of course, I see it as primarily the parent’s responsibility to inculcate the virtue to disdain both.
That's where we align - the avowed democratic socialist and the conservative Christian agreeing that, at the end of the day, it's the parent's responsibility to parent, and it's the individual's responsibility to make better choices - including seeking help for problems they're having. Where we may disagree on approach, however (I dunno, this is kinda speculating here based on other CC's I know/lived with/attended Church with), is that I believe the steps towards minimizing or eliminating harms is destigmatizing these things in the first place. It means getting over our societal aversion to SEX, a natural biological thing we've been doing as a species for millennia. It means getting over our disdain for addicts, and offering help.
If these ghouls (passing the laws) actually cared about children, families, or humans in general, they'd be supporting rehabilitation instead of penalizing consenting adults. They'd be penalizing exploitative employers and creating a tax structure that rewards stay-at-home partners while enabling every couple to have one such partner.
That's not what's happening, though, and I resent being denigrated as some sort of sick degenerate by a government that won't even feed its fucking kids.
People need to touch grass instead of blaming everyone else for their failure to do so haha.
[flagged]
Same as it ever was. The government has been congenitally unable to strike a rational balance between free speech vs indecency statutes. "I know it when I see it" has been a meme since 1964 when it was written by the Supreme Court. In handing control of that balance over to the states, the federal government is just giving up. But it won't work. The issue still needs to be resolved. We're going to see many, many, many more Supreme Court cases on indecency vs free speech.
That is because the false balance is complete bullshit. Free speech means free speech. Obscenity is just special pleading "but it is icky!". The same thing has been happening for centuries. They came across a good idea as a foundational principle and the dumb fuckers wearing dresses we call judges refuse to see it. They then prove that they are all lawyers by constructing elaborate rationalizations. They also did the same thing to the Fourteenth ammendment's equal protection under the law working as grounds barring corruption and injustice.
A more effective solution would be to implement HTML tags for explicit sexual content (or any other kind of child-sensitive content) and allow the OS or browser to authenticate the user before showing that content, if parental controls are enabled.
Legal obligations and responibilities become very clear: the site has tags - it's ok. No tags - guilty.
It also allows for very fine-grained delimitation of sexual content. No need to forbid access to an entire site for one page, or one paragraf of sexual content. Just blur/censor the <adult> ... </adult> content.
I like this, already got face ID built into our devices including PCs these days... tap into that. That curbs the whole issue of sending your identifying information to third party websites.
This article is incorrect.
The Supreme Court’s ruling only applied to obscene sexual material. It doesn’t apply to sex scenes within artistic works or sexual content in general.
There’s a test used to determine whether sexual material is considered pornographic. It’s known as the “I know it when I see it” test.
More info on this test here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
More specifically here is what is considered obscene:
The criteria were:
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law;
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The third criterion pertains to judgment made by "reasonable persons" of the United States as a whole, while the first pertains to that of members of the local community. Due to the larger scope of the third test, it is a more ambiguous criterion than the first two.
The article is, in fact, correct.
Community standards vary by community, both physically and digitally. The community standards of a rural town in Utah or ChristianDating.net are likely to be wildly different than the community standards of a major city on the coastlines or PornHub users. This wrinkle is exactly why there's renewed efforts to define what obscenity legally is [1], so that it's inclusive of as much "porn" as possible.
Additionally, you're conveniently ignoring what the author spends most of their piece decrying: the fact that these laws permit "ambulance chasing" attorneys to sue across state lines. That's the real issue, especially given the fact that some state laws can allow civil action to lead to prison time for conviction. Even ignoring the potential outcomes however, these lawsuits are instantly bankrupting for a majority of Americans, and the laws so (intentionally) broadly written that even genuinely innocent parties are likely to fork over money to make it go away given the cost of mounting a defense.
Put simply: obscenity lacks a firm legal definition, the definition of porn is nebulous and variable from person to person, and these laws are written to maximize harm to a maximal population size. The intent is to criminalize as many undesirables as possible, and the current administration and political parties have been transparent that anyone not rich, white, straight, Christian, and cisgendered male are emphatically undesirable.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/167...
As an ambulance chaser, I can assure you that suing out of state defendants for out of state activity has become nearly impossible. See Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell (2017), Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017), Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District (2021), Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023)
Sounds like the article isn’t incorrect? The first two criteria depend on which community is doing the judging. New Yorkers will have à different norm than people from say a quaint 5k-person town where there’s an 8:1 church:supermarket ratio. The third criteria is vague, but vagueness cuts both ways.
Who defines an artistic work? If I produce a porn film, why isn't that my artistic commentary on sex? Laws cant be this subjective because subjectivity implies subjectivity in ruling which is objectively awful.
In the legal sense, a judge would.
That’s an issue
Yes, I know
Ah nvm, you sounded supportive.
The jury
The article would seem correct since "obscene" could be twisted to mean whatever they want. As the people making the ruling can say the average person believes x.
Nope. A key aspect of this ruling is that it's about "sexual content that is obscene to minors but not to adults". "Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors [..] and submitting to age verification burdens the exercise of that right. But adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification."
The Texas law at issue takes the same three factors you quoted and lists them verbatim, but tacks on "for minors" to each factor, e.g.:
> (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
There's no precedent yet on what it means for something to "lack [..] artistic [..] value for minors", but it's almost certain to be interpreted as a harder standard to satisfy than the normal one.
kissing is obscene :)
In many cultures, it is. Especially kissing in the public.
The article sounds very correct.
Anything can be perceived as “obscene” especially when you leave that interpretation open to any particular group.
A man in drag is considered obscene by some people.
We've had kids accessing an Internet without any working age barriers for over 30 years now.
There have been problems, be that grooming, Facebook parties and maybe addiction to TikTok.
But being able to access adult content be that sexual or violent in nature doesn't really seem to have had much negative consequences.
Sure I wouldn't want my 10 year old to see 2 girls 1 cup - but I reckon it wouldn't be the end of the world if he did.
It's good that we have content recommendations. But we shouldn't try to actually enforce them.
Again: with all the options kids have had for accessing porn online in the last couple of decades, if it was actually THAT bad, we'd be having an epidemic. Yet we don't. The kids are alright
So, you're saying that children/adults nowadays are not negatively affected by early sexual exposure?
These are some of the negative effects, what early sexual exposure can cause:
- unrealistic or harmful beliefs about sex, intimacy, and gender roles
- sex disconnected from intimacy, respect, consent
- anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, body image issues
- broken families (one parent missing), divorce
- problems with emotional regulation, impulse control
- attention control problems, aggression, withdrawal
I say, all of these are on the rise and are a big problem.
Content restrictions should just be an option with the ISP: to make the entire modem/phone disable adult content and/or require age verification. This, I would disable (presuming `on` by default).
>2 girls 1 cup
I still remember showing that to curious ladies in grad school (who'd heard about it); some of my favorite reaction footage.
>10 years old
My generation's equivalent was lemonparty.com
=>O<=
Its really sad to see this getting attacked, now, after all that's transpired, after so many years. You'd think if it was that dire, again maybe 10 years in there would have been more action. But again its not genuine, so its really about the ulterior motives. Not even to mention the 1st amendment issues, which again don't just magically dissapear when a bunch of people stick to party lines.
Alas, we are in an age of hyper over-regulation though and this is just another example. I could come up with countless others in wildly different fields which have one astonishing commonality. That business has been running fine for ages and all of a sudden, we need to regulate.
[flagged]
Let's blind all kids. Anyone who is opposed must believe that a non-zero chance of a child seeing two women have sex and eat turds is normal and healthy.
If it wasn't for your fine taste in ketchup I wouldn't have any qualms about writing you off as an imbecile.
I want to believe that your lack of discernment in one area betrays what suggests sound judgment in another. Unless the latter holds true only on occasions that satisfy your gullet.
I saw that when I was little and it was just gross; I’m fine lol. My generation was the one watching cartel executions at that same time and that’s probably worse.
Who is your generation and how do you think they turned out.
No, save it (don't save it, this is rhetorical), because apparently every generation is screwed up in their own way that begets the ills of the next.
And if we happen to be cohorts (which I suspect we may be), then I think we made out as worse as any.
And is it wrong to assume that there isn't any difference between either kinds of footage? That one goads the other in either direction?
Anything you experience may push you in a direction with some magnitude, but we tend to overestimate the magnitude and mispredict the direction because we’re worried about the wellbeing of kids. Think “violent video games create school schootings.” In reality, kids have to deal with a lot of real things in life that are hard, an abusive parent or bullies at school, but those realities are harder to deal with so we distract ourselves worrying about violent video games. At the end of the day, it’s a recording on a screen, which is very different from a traumatic reality because you can just turn it off.
I'll offer the following speculation:
Virtual reality simulates physical reality.
In some cases, like violent video games, they assuage traumas. Whether it's a recording on a screen or not, can our brains tell the difference?
Something is going on, spooky and subtle in the mind that makes whatever is on the screen meaningful to us.
I don't want to get us trapped in this false interpretation that in the year 2025 there is a difference between how human beings are affected in the physical and digital world. To be frank, it's stupid to think like this, meaning that it's an insult to the intelligence of the person who thinks this way and it needs to be called out as such in order to encourage them to think critically about the matter.
If this whole interaction is just some woopdy doo, willy nilly, be that as it may sort of engagement with media, what compels us then to entertain the things that we don't (or don't want to) attribute to the hard things in life?
I'm going to assume your gender and your age to some degree here:
Middle-aged men have a tendency to Wednesday Night Sitcom Dad their way out of confronting things that bring their own vulnerabilities into question and collectively make them accountable for figuring out what to do about these things, especially if it comes at the cost of comfort that they're trying to preserve that are the accessories to their vulnerabilities.
What we're discussing isn't as simple as the "close your eyes to avoid cyberbullying" quips of yore: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tyler-the-creators-cyber-bull... (in which I make a more blatant attempt at guessing which generation you belong to and consequently expose my own).
Close: male but not middle aged
Our brains can’t tell the difference, but that’s not what I said. What I said is that it can be turned off. Social media cyberbullying comes along with entanglements that keep you on the site. For a shock video, I think the suburban dad has a point. To be clear, if someone came up to me and said they had really struggled with what they’d seen in a shock video as a kid and that it was really messing with them, I wouldn’t dismiss that or make fun of them or something. It’s just that the opposite has been my experience and the experience of those who I’m close to.
My friend (we're friends now, and that makes you middle-aged by association):
I hope it didn't seem like I was advancing premises that you never proposed outright. I was derived that premise on my own. I take full ownership of the words that you put in my mouth by the virtue of what you did say being thought-provoking.
And I ask you, if our brains can't tell the difference then what does turning it off actually achieve? If your self esteem or your sheer will to live is broken offline, going online does not solve this problem on its own. I'm speaking unconditionally and not in a way that can be made subject to circumstance.
If you feel ugly, or feel like dying, or feel anything, in a way that resonates with you at the very core of your being (and I know, I know, who's to say a supernatural "core of being" exists right?) then it's a wrap for you. It's going to take about as much effort to redeem yourself as it would if you were physically harmed in the street.
At the end, I don't think that what I'm saying is spectacular for anyone who has basic qualities of self-awareness and empathy (and I'm not saying that you're not one of them) or psychology (of which I am no savant and would even follow your lead to some extent if you have any trails to offer).
The point of contention is a matter of belief—ideologically and morally—and the depths that we're willing to go to scrutinize what gives us pleasure and why. In a way I think that this runs counterintuitive to the notions of "civil liberty" that pervade modern thought and any attempt to distinguish right from wrong on a scale greater than the individual makes the powder-wigged patriot in us quiver in our britches.
So there's that. I'm tapped.
It doesn't - rather, it attacks the preposition at it's source. Pornography is bad, supposedly, but is it actually? It seems to me we all moved on without actually answering that question.
We know it's bad for moral reasons, but moral reasons are stupid and I don't trust them. But is it actually bad - like in the real world, with tangible effects, not made-up ones? I don't know, and it looks like you don't know, and OP doesn't know, and the people who are pushing this age verification don't know either.
Sure, two girls one cup is disgusting. It's vile. It's immoral. But is it harmful? That's a different question.
That's a huge problem. You see, we're attempting to solve a problem which we haven't proved even exists.
Getting shot at school is far worse than seeing a vagina, but according to the people doing the censoring a movie featuring a vagina is a bigger problem than a violent random death.
As moral positions go, it's actually quite eccentric.
I have a feeling that this is going to turn into one of those exchanges where we capoeira around theory and definitions and what "real" is and what "real" isn't in a way I have to think that either you've lived a sheltered life, or are in denial or have some kind of resentment toward the disgusting, vile and immoral things that you've witnessed that were "harmful" to you (I'm not a therapist).
Moral reasons are stupid and you don't trust them.
Go find a ten-year-old and show them the video yourself. Then see if they feel up to letting you stick around them long enough for you to figure out whether there were any real-world, tangible effects.
What I mean by "real" is real-world, tangible.
If I drive a car without a seatbelt, that has real-world effects. I can get ejected and die, as well as hurting other people.
But pornography doesn't split my skull. It doesn't crush my fingers. It doesn't make me poorer. It doesn't make me sicker. It doesn't hurt me physically, or financially, or even socially.
I know, or at least I figured that's what you meant.
I'm not a proponent of the discipline per say, and maybe because of this, my impression that the entire field of psychology is meant to partially address the real-word, tangible effects of things that do not cause apparent physical harm is naive.
If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment.
I'm going to leave out a more accessible or agreeable example because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can come up one on your own.
I don't mean to be condescending, but I want to assume that you're arguing in good faith.
Have you, or any one who you know, seen something disgusting, vile or immoral that didn't cause physical harm but had a negative consequence on how you feel about yourself or the world around you?
Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews?
I know, and I figure that you know too. "Good" and "bad" exist in quotations marks and only count among the people who don't need them to use them with each other.
> Why are we quick to champion the value of the "good" things that don't offer any material benefit (i.e., physically, financially, socially) but criticizing the "bad" requires graphs and groups and variables and peer reviews?
To answer this, it's because of how modern societies view rights. Namely, you can do whatever you want, until we can prove it's to a detriment to other people. Before doing something, we need not prove it is good.
On an individual level, it is a very good idea to have some guarantee something is good before we do it. But on a societal level, we don't do this, and for good reason. Before we censor or restrict, we must assure we have good reasons for doing so.
> If I'm accustomed to women getting indiscriminately reamed and pinned and prodded at my own discretion—even casually—I am at a detriment.
I might agree, but sexuality and sex is very complex.
I can argue that it's not that simple, and sex exists beyond the bounds of what you do - it's part of who you are, and not much in your control.
For example, I am a homosexual, I'm gay. Naturally my sex involves anal intercourse with other men. To many, this is disgusting. Gross, unsanitary, distasteful.
My life would certainly be easier if I did not have this affliction, but simultaneously I cannot control it. I've tried, as has every gay man or boy at some point in their lives. And, I do not know what has caused it. If I never viewed pornography, ever, I am 100% confident I would still be gay.
I do not know how it works for heterosexuals, but I imagine, to some degree, their sexual proclivities are, too, not under their control. I don't think removing pornography would remove those sexual proclivities.
Many of these things can’t be “unseen,” and I wish I hadn’t.
I bet they would have found cakefarts.com hilarious! At least it delivered what the url promised, unlike expertsexchange.com, penisland.com, and therapistfinder.com.
Solution: build technologies which make government statute effectively irrelevant. It must be uncensorable even by a nation-state adversary, and must hide its users and their activities. The future is software technology designed to thwart the ability of prosecutors to introduce evidence into a court. We must fight against the state's War on Crime with everything we have; the state has abused that war for centuries to justify its expansion. Courts should only bless victims taking revenge or retribution, offer an optional institution of rehabitation and recompense that the convict can voluntarily ascend to, else if the convict chooses to be free then he's at the mercy of the victim and whatever the victim chooses to do to the convict. Court cases should not result in involuntary imprisonment but only voluntary, incentivized by not being assaulted/killed in public as an outlaw. (Elected oath taking office holders excepted, prison should be a real possibility.)
It matters more to restrain and limit the state than it does to punish bad behavior. Furthermore the state has committed countless crimes in its treatment of the customers they chose to condemn, and ought to be dissolved entirely down to the office clerk. Unfortunately, the only way that happens is law of the guillotine.
Question for all the people who say that the government should not do this -- how do you protect your children accessing these sites?
It's ironic that the faction that's usually talking about "personal responsibility" is now saying we can't put this horrible burden on parents to control their kids' device use --- or even just teach them how to make healthy decisions and interpret what they see in a healthy manner. I seriously doubt that reading smutty stories online is going to scar a kid for life.
It's not ironic, rather it's hypocritical. At this point it's painfully clear that they only invoke lofty ideals to trick reasonable people into supporting their backwards authoritarian agenda. The real aim is simply for power, and open hypocrisy is one aspect of demonstrating power - rules for thee, not for me.
"Party of free speech," my ass.
Virtue signalling Christian values, obviously that overrides free speech.
Free speech for me, not for thee
I worry that young people across the political spectrum increasingly no longer see free speech as a foundational value. Both sides pay lip service and deploy it strategically but are quick to sacrifice it when it conflicts with other values and goals.
The ACLU won our expansive free speech protections defending the KKK in the 1950s. But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting. Young progressives are happy to sacrifice free speech protections to prevent hate speech.
On the other hand, social conservatives have always been eager to curtail speech they consider obscene or liscentious, and now Trump is using executive powers to punish protesters, creating an authoritarian atmosphere unlike anything we've experienced since perhaps the McCarthy era.
There are organisations like FIRE and EFF that give me some hope, but it increasingly feels like all sides would rather cement themselves in power than continue the infinite game of liberal democracy.
> But today, the ACLU has become short-sighted. They are more concerned with social progressivism than the liberal foundations of our democracy which allow social progressives to continue fighting.
Quite the opposite. I stopped donating to the ACLU after a few years of the last trump administration because I could no longer stomach it given the clear direction trumpism is taking the country. I still support the mission ideologically but can't back it up with my money. Seeing trump this time around I'm glad I haven't wasted the money - the constitution is dead.
The GOP under Trump has considerably changed from the GOP under Bush. There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives. Perhaps a shift might be coming with the next economic downturn, which seems inevitable given the risk-off investment climate across most industries stemming from Trump’s erratic, unpredictable trade and economic policy. Things don’t look bad just yet, but it takes a while for the full impact of such enormous changes in sentiment to ripple down through the entire economy.
Reagan and Bush were constrained by much more liberal supreme court justices of the previous era. The current Supreme Court justices were clerks and lawyers during Reagan and Bush presidency. If Reagan and Bush had the current justices in their bench I can almost guarantee they’d be pulling the same stunts.
Bush wasn’t exactly a steward of free speech
The Bushes and Reagan were a little more genteel but that's it. Reagan even gave the wink wink nod nod speech about States' Rights at the Neshoba County Fair. The difference between them and Trump is sortorial.
> There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives.
There is, they just don’t like it for aesthetic and/or historical reasons.
The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush.
If the centrists and moderate conservatives could make common cause, they would easily shut out both the far left and far right wings of American politics. The demographics are there.
I think the main wedge preventing this unification is still abortion, and to a lesser extent LGBTQ rights. But it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings. Real tail wagging the dog stuff.
> it’s so weird to see two political factions that agree on 90% of policy get shellacked and overruled by their respective extreme wings
These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing. They aren’t extremists. They are the party views.
> These parties have primaries and Republicans are choosing—by a majority—the crazies over the “traditional” wing.
Elections are by and large not contests of policy, and I think it’s likely that most American voters (across the spectrum, not just the GOP) aren’t voting in their own self-interest anymore.
Most moderates don’t vote in the primaries. The hardcore extremists vote unfailingly.
Primaries are primarily voted in by crazies. Regular people have lives and jobs.
Libertarian and Democratic parties ought to feel right at home for any refugees from the GOP who have conservative principles. Democratic party is right of center.
> There is no longer a political home for Reagan/Bush-style conservatives
That's funny, considering Bush II effectively established the coalition of business interests, religious zealots, and neofascist militias, which then expanded to be the backbone of Trump's support. Cautionary tale about consequences of one's political choices? I wish.
I've found that "free speech" is important for Americans when it is about rights of Neo-Nazis but otherwise not so much.
Neither of the two parties is very much in favor of free speech. The left has cancel culture and policing pronouns while the right has blocking books with gay characters and age verification laws.
There are two common definitions of the phrase "free speech" that I think you are conflating:
1. The Constitutional right to free speech under the first amendment (i.e. specifically that the government may not use its authority to limit or punish its peoples' expression of ideas)
2. The vague notion that others should not be able to criticize you for something you've said or written
In this thread we are more concerned with the former. No one on the left is trying to enact laws to punish anyone's impolite use of pronouns. At worst, maybe someone has asked you to be considerate in some non-official setting (which has little to do with the first amendment).
There is a massive difference between other people reacting to your speech and choosing not to associate with you or propagate what you say, and the government banning your speech and prosecuting you for it. You can exercise your freedom of speech, and other people can exercise their freedom of association to want nothing to do with you.
The left was kinda annoying about it but nobody was going to throw you in jail for misgendering someone or whatever.
“Cancel culture” is not government policy (and never was).
Cancel Culture is actually just the free market, the invisible hand, at work.
What is a boycott but cancel culture? The idea of the free market is that good behaviors and products emerge because consumers "vote" with their wallet. If a company has bad values I don't support then I don't shop there. Enough people do that and the company collapses. So, what remains is an economy where every company acts virtuously.
Theoretically. Then enters propaganda and the GOP. They tell you this invisible hand is bad, and companies should be able to do anything. At a glance this appears to be free speech, but it's not - it's the exact opposite.
You see, they can say anything they want, but we can't. We may not criticize them. Our opinions are not valid, they're "Cancel Culture".
Interesting argument. But I think cancel culture often has more in common with a lynch mob than a boycott.
A lynch mob is a boycott, especially when they aren't lynching. Lynch mob used to mean something literally, when people did lynching. Now it just means "a bunch of people don't like someone and don't financially support them".
That's a boycott.
People still get actually lynched.
I point out to self-described "classic liberals" that what they call "cancel culture" was instead described by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty" as an essential component of liberty:
"We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement."
This is ignoring difference between individual distancing from such person and cancel culture campaigns, whose characteristic pattern is transitivity (boycotting third persons just because they do not participate themselves in boycott). Amplifying effect of such transitivity creates a social coercion in the form that Mill warned against in chapter 1. That is why he mentioned "though not to parade the avoidance" - to not induce society-wide coordination leading to social coercion.
Mill distinguishes between natural penalties (which are just results of others distancing from the person) and artificial punishment:
"It makes a vast difference both in our feelings and in our conduct towards him, whether he displeases us in things in which we think we have a right to control him, or in things in which we know that we have not. If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable."
I think it is clear that actions like urging an employer to fire such person are more on level "make his life uncomfortable" than "we may express our distaste and we distance".
The "displeases us" you quoted is for "the part of a person's life which concerns only himself". For example, "No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk."
For actions "which concerns others" Mill writes:
"The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe. In the one case, he is an offender at our bar, and we are called on not only to sit in judgment on him, but, in one shape or another, to execute our own sentence: in the other case, it is not our part to inflict any suffering on him, except what may incidentally follow from our using the same liberty in the regulation of our own affairs, which we allow to him in his."
No, but it is endemic to American colleges and universities which are government or government-funded institutions.
Furthermore, spend a little time on BlueSky and you will find huge support for the hate speech laws found in other countries.
Finally, the distinction between government regulation of speech and private regulation of speech is key in the court of law, but it is almost irrelevant from the point of view of a philosophy that values open inquiry, debate, and dissent as indispensible to human dignity and progress.
Except it was. It was the government who ordered Twitter to ban or shadowban people like Prof. Jay Bhattacharya.
The government didn't do that.
"The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation."
The government had no capacity to “order” Twitter to do this, in stark contrast to this law.
And yet they did, and twitter did comply.
I've noticed that cancel culture and policing pronouns is far stronger on the right. What Democrat has been canceled as much as Liz Cheney by Republicans? Certainly not the sex pest Andrew Cuomo, heartily supported by the Democratic Party leadership.
What Democratic president has issued an executive order anywhere equivalent to Trump's order requiring pronouns match the gender "at conception", and the anti-scientific claim that gender is a male-female binary?
The right also wants to block books which have nothing to do with gay characters, including “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian”, “Maus”, “The Handmaid's Tale“, “Of Mice and Men“ and “Brave New World”.
It's interesting that we, as humans, are all so neurotic about sex, and especially about allowing our kids to understand that sex exists, that we rush to outlaw any depictions of it that our kids could potentially see. While at the same time making sure adults are still able to see it, of course. Because everyone knows that when you're 6569 days old, seeing someone have sex will cause life-long scarring, but when you're 6570 days old it doesn't matter anymore.
We also outlaw the depiction of any crimes related to sex, and here we find it easier to justify the ban, but in our haste we clump together actual crimes committed against a real victim, and imaginary crimes such as e.g. a cartoonist drawing a rape scene. In the latter case we close our eyes to the fact that we claim to support something called "freedom of speech" and, in our neurotic hunt to ban things sex-related we trample our principles.
Same goes for e.g. CSA, but in that case in particular, logic and consistency seems to go out the window and principles are sacrificed in the blink of an eye. It makes me a little depressed to see.
As for individual countries trying to enforce their local socio-cultural norms on the rest of the world, that is of course equally silly. The US is great in many ways, but introspection and ability to follow principles is sometimes lacking for sure.
I wouldn't be surprised if our sexual neurosis is what makes an AGI finally decide that we're not competent to captain the ship anymore.
Not "we, as humans". Only for we, as third world country
I'm in Sweden, and we behave the same way. We just don't focus on exactly the same things. The attitude towards sex in general is more relaxed, but when it comes to CSA we would love to impose our views on defining and policing it on the rest of the world, see https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
I feel so bad for the teenager whose mom is parading him around as a permanently defective ruined form of life. Could that be damaging to a kid do you think?
Munchausen's for sympathy and fame isn't new, but it is pretty tragic when you see it.
I'm genuinely curious. The parent buys the phone/laptop. And when little Timmy logs in to his phone the account should be in a family/group as a child account.
What's with the obsession with actually verifying identity? Just make a web API available to determine if the current user is configured as a child account. Why isn't that enough to gate-keep access to adult content?
Timmy's friend in school has parents who have no idea about family/child accounts. They just give him a phone and let him do whatever he wants.
Timmy's friend is really popular in school.
Someone missed the responsibility step: parents are responsible for their kids not rando strangers across the world, and when kids get old enough they're responsible for themselves. Unless they need carers, then the carers are responsible.
It's a matter of time before the US system crumbles if these assaults on the federal system and civil liberties continue.
I live in state with a population of 40 million who gives $83 billion more to the federal government than gets back. It's absolutely insane we have to be ruled by afar by what is effectively a small minority. This will come to a head not only in Censorship, Immigration, Tariffs, Abortion access (banning abortion medication federally), Industrial policy, etc.
At a certain point California is going to say, "No Thanks" and peace out.
Since the civil war it’s been clear no one is getting out alive.
A variation of “no taxation without representation”?
Why can’t we just have a meta tag that declares that content on a website is not suitable for minors?
Or is it because, as others have mentioned, it’s not really about protecting minors from adult content?
Hopefully someone kept a snapshot of the country's configs before this year began. I feel like we're going to need it. This is ludicrous - as so much is lately.
Unfortunately, the S3 bucket we use to host the backups is gone... the compliance department complained about it, but now they're gone, too...
> The public library in rural Donnelly, Idaho, at only 1,024 square feet, had no practical way to create an enforceable “adults only” section and no budget to defend against lawsuits. Therefore, to comply with the law, they decided to make the entire library for adults only. The library has banned minors from entering the library (even to use the bathroom) unless they are accompanied by an adult, or holding a waiver from their parents.
This is absurd. It does look like they're suing, with help from a lot of publishers, at least.
I spent a lot of time after school in the library to avoid my abusive cult guardians at home. If this avenue hadn't been available to me in my small town, I'd likely have committed suicide. But, I'm an atheist, so me committing suicide would probably be seen as a win for these evangelical freaks.
Yeah, me too. It’s very chilling to see the resurgence of a very broad conception of parental rights, which can in some cases permit the wholesale physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children without recourse.
It’s hard to talk about it without being accused of hyperbole, but some of these proposed laws come very close to making children the property of their parents. As someone who grew up in an abusive household, that makes me exceedingly uncomfortable.
I shared this experience before on a recent thread about the role librarians play in counterculture and a user made a throwaway account in order to tell me to kill myself all sorts of creative ways and that he's glad I was abused, etc. etc.
I've talked to enough people who explicitly believe that children are chattel (sometimes in the same breath as complaining about abuse they suffered from their own parents) to know this isn't hyperbole.
The Republican party has worked to kill public libraries and public education for years, so this fits right in line.
[flagged]
An ADA compliant bathroom is almost 200sqft. And they will need at least 2 of them. So now that 1000sqft is now 600sqft. And they still need a place to store and process books, reading rooms, etc.
Also there's a big difference between a general "children's room" and strictly enforced "adults only" and "for children" section, with risk of costly lawsuits if some extremist parent thinks the kid saw something "obscene". My library had a children's section and even some toys, but I could walk in and go anywhere.
Since I'm not American I don't have a good idea of what 1024 sq feet is: it's about 95m². I laughed out loud when I realised just how small it is. To suggest this is large enough for a strictly separated adult and children section is profoundly unserious.
I've lived in several houses that had 2 bedrooms, a bathroom (with tub/shower), a kitchen, and laundry closet that were 8-900 sq ft, so to me it seems profoundly unserious to suggest you can't fit a small adult only room (think more like a walk in closet) in that space.
Ignoring that, they don't even need a room. They just can't let kids access it. A locked armoire near the checkout ought to suffice.
> The ADA Standards, on the other hand, do not address the number of toilet rooms or fixtures required for a facility, but instead specify which ones must be accessible where provided.
https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-6-toilet-roo...
For what it's worth, chatgpt and random reddit comments claim you'd need closer to 50sqft for a compliant bathroom. Maybe that's nonsense.
In any case, their Facebook page is full of recent pictures of children in the library, so it seems that they were indeed unsurprisingly just posturing.
You design libraries? Fascinating!
Is there anything we can actually do to combat this? Im short of ideas, tho the 33% rule can be potentially worked around by generating loads of fake content similar to a previous poster who generates fake content for scrapers to eat Im in the UK and they recently passed a similar law banning any explicit _imagery_, which I already thought was bad but the land of freedom beats us out again, the literally surveillance state, at least that's that's enforced top down by ofcom instead of an army of injury lawyers so it works at ofcom's speed
Remember personals and missed connections on Craigslist? Remember when they took those down, and why?
This goes back a long ways.
[deleted]
This article doesn't really go into any detail about the Supreme Court decision it discusses, instead reserving its detailed discussion for the laws this decision permits. Anyone have a link to the opinion, or an article discussing it specifically?
[deleted]
Does it have to be written? Does it apply to video and audio contents of similar manners?
I don't think it has to be written or even particularly raunchy, just has to be deemed "damaging to children".
Looking at banned children's books should fine you an idea of the offline precedent here.
The Supreme Court is eroding the credibility of the institution of law faster than they can make laws. They really want to see how the public reacts to overreach?
I think people are putting far too much of an ideological lens on this ruling. As a "matter of law" this seems like the right decision. The supreme court is not a board of dictators making societal decisions based on their flavor of the day. Their job is too see if the ruling is consistent with all other laws we have and the normal function of a modern society. Pushing the envelope one way or another is not their job even if they end up doing that. At the end of the day the (elected) state governments have decided to create a policy that reflects what their constituents want. The supreme court job is not to question the logic of that. They did not run for office or win elections. They just need to make sure that what being done is reasonable and not violating any existing laws. As a tech guy I think these laws are stupid but this case was not the right hill to die on. What needs to happen is that these laws get enacted, costs and unintended consequences happen and THOSE parties sue on the supreme court on that basis
This would be all correct if we didn’t have one particular set of laws above the others – the constitution. And it is unclear if rights guaranteed by constitution (freedom of speech in this case) aren’t infringed by this particular law. There is no such thing here as “if they passed a law let it be”. It can be true if they passed the constitution amendment but they obviously didn’t.
Now we can talk about real issue here - how correct the trade off the court is taking between freedom of speech infringement and this law. And as you can see in original post - author there thinks this trade off was taken wrongly by the court. I, personally, think the same.
"Some people who mourn Alan Turing would continue to kill him if he came back, some Christians would continue to crucify Christ if he came back."
One of the goals in Project 2025 is to make teachers, librarians, etc. that purvey "pornography" into felons, and jail them for a long time. That starts with labeling things as pornography.
Before you know it, anything that mentions LGBTQ+ topics will be labeled as porn.
Next comes continually redefining “pornography”.
Unfortunately, these laws are working exactly as intended. If they discourage all forms of sexually-explicit material, the laws are working as intended. They are not really about "protecting the children." They use that as an excuse to make it too legally risky to publish pornographic/sexual material under any circumstances.
If I was a publisher, would I trust an age-verification system to protect me from 15 years in prison or an "investigation" that results in nothing but destroying my life? Nope. So eventually the legitimate website operators just give up.
Or how about the ISP who now simply refuses to do business with any website that publishes sexual material just to avoid legal consequences for themselves?
Working as intended.
So which state's ISPs do we need to IP-ban?
IP banning Tennessee would be an interesting form of protest. Seems like these laws are usually super unpopular, but the general public doesn’t usually find out about them enough to get upset. If it doesn’t airtime on Fox News, my dad will literally never know it happened.
Putting up a big “Tennessee might try to put me in jail if you access this site” would get people’s attention.
Not that any business that gets a real amount of traffic would ever do such a thing. Nobody visits my shitty personal site lol
Pornhub has in fact been doing such a thing.
I'm still wrapping my head around the consequences of this, which almost seem too big to believe. It sounds like there are hundreds of millions if not billions to be made on filing these kinds of lawsuits, which means change is coming hard and fast. What if anything prevents the following?
1. Lawsuits against content "normalizing LGBTQ+ identity," which many conservatives claim is harmful to minors. This creates opportunities for conservative groups to file frivolous but expensive-to-defend lawsuits targeting LGBTQ+ advocacy online. Will this sort of thing get sued out of existence?
2. Lawyers will first go after the largest targets. Does this mean that e.g. large health websites will have to take down articles on sex education? Might they even do do preemptively?
3. Relatedly, will all major US porn websites go behind age gates soon? Has this already happened?
So no bounty because it's not a security problem. But the MV3 API they are deleting, they say...is being deleted for security reasons. Not at all to hobble ad blockers.
Who knew giving kids unlimited porn would have negative consequences.
any kid that has unlimited porn is a kid with poor parents, and they were gonna get into things much worse than porn anyway since parents aren't around and being negligent.
I’m a porn abolitionist, and I still hate these laws. Requiring digital identification online is an incredibly chilling step. It is a direct assault on anonymity.
Wow. Porn abolitionist. That's a fascinating position. One I can't begin to fathom, so it's very interesting.
It's an attempt to get a list of people for a future Gilead like government to prosecute. It's not about protecting children, it's a way to get a list of nonbelievers and sinners in the hopes they can set up their theocracy and punish the non-believers.
That has always been the problem with advocating free speech - that eventually you have to protect the rights of the writers of nazi furry slash fiction and similar fellows. And are really soft and fluffy target.
I'm puzzled by this 33% thing. Can I just host two videos of wholesome AI slop for every porn shoot? Like, if Pornhub adds a Christian section they can continue as-is?
It's a foot in the door law, newer laws will only become more draconian. Slow frog boil tactics are not uncommon with fascists. Look what Orban is doing, setting up fascism one step at a time, rather than an overwhelming military coup type of takeover.
The strategic objective here is to authenticate all web traffic.
That's your "Small Government" in action, folks.
[deleted]
FTA: "In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site."
No, they can't. That's not how jurisdiction works in the U.S. If states could do stuff like that, GOP prosecutors would be charging out-of-state Democratic politicians with made-up-crimes all the time. They're not doing that. It's not because they don't want to; it's because they can't. (And also, the legal justification that would allow them to go after their political enemies like this would allow politically-opposed prosecutors to do the same to them.)
States are already trying to police abortions outside of state lines. If you helped someone get an abortion in another state, they want to be able to arrest you for it.
The EU is far ahead of Texas on this. Spain is launching a “porn passport” system (Cartera Digital Beta) using government-issued digital ID to verify age, and France has already attempted something similar. Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, platforms—including porn sites—must implement age checks for EU users regardless of where the site is based. And this isn’t being led by “conservative Christians”—Spain’s Socialist PM Pedro Sánchez is pushing it. I know we’re talking “America” here, but this isn’t some puritanical American concept.
This article overreads the Supreme Court’s decision. It upheld a narrow Texas law requiring age verification to access adult content, applying intermediate scrutiny and emphasizing in-state regulatory authority. It didn’t grant states power to prosecute across borders, nor did it change existing limits on state jurisdiction.
The argument relies on a stack of fallacies:
Post hoc — assumes the ruling causes harms that depend on future, hypothetical laws.
Slippery slope — claims this leads to extraterritorial prosecution, which the ruling doesn’t support.
Appeal to fear — frames state level regulation as existential threat without legal basis.
I can't take a post seriously when it uses AI images. How do I know the rest of the content isn't AI slop?
This is insane. Literally goes against the first amendment. What recourse is there for this nonsensical decision? Mass disobedience? Leaking verified IDs until they stop this?
How exactly do these laws work if the servers are hosted outside of the US?
They don't, of course. These laws aren't here to protect children. They're just a step on the road to one of their (conservative Christian) goals: banning pornography entirely in the US.
Sounds like a great reason to set up a Great Porn Firewall and demand ID of anyone attempting to gain access to any IP outside of the USA
They will try blackmail hosting country with tariffs.
As an outsider seeing the US destroy everything people associate with America in a couple months is sort of morbidly funny...
Most people's associations with the US were fanciful and unrealistic to begin with. It's just that now the reality has diverged so far from their mental images that they're forced to acknowledge the disparity.
While we do produce a lot of porn, remember that the pre-US colonies were founded by conservative religious people who were too conservative even for Europe at the time.
When it comes to nudity and sex America has always been puritanical.
Blood and guns, sure. Freedumb
[deleted]
The government is just another religion, another church. Sometimes they are right, but usually they are just dangerous like any other group of religious bigots.
So now we can out up porn and harvest IDs? Love it.
I really didn't expect that from the land of freedom. /s
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Is "this was restricted for centuries" a moral rule of thumb you use consistently? What's your opinion about gay rights, woman's suffrage?
I’m a liberal. I generally agree with the principle, not the premise.
My point again is that these “rights” you’re talking about are built on our social contract. There is no premise that “porn is free speech,” in fact, quite the opposite, again, for centuries.
The existence of porn on the internet was the result of legislation, not right. That legislation is changing, we need to organize to make sure it remains legal.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
You’re forgetting the entire history of Europe and the Catholic church.
We don’t even come close to the bullshit that happened in the past.
Not that it makes the present any better.
[flagged]
I'll acknowledge that you mentioned "leftists" here and they do quite a bit of purity testing in their circles, but what laws did they pass to limit speech?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What is this maimed in the streets business?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Nothing you single out matters here. His background doesn't invalidate his arguments.
[deleted]
[flagged]
[dead]
A bit off base. He's basically having a meltdown over what's actually a pretty narrow ruling about age verification.
First, he claims the Court "nullified the First Amendment" for sex writing, but that's just not what happened. The Court explicitly said adults still have the right to access this stuff—they just need to show ID first, like buying beer. That's not "nullification."
Second, Ellsberg acts like any sex scene anywhere triggers these laws, but H.B. 1181 only hits commercial websites where over a third of the content is sexually explicit material that's harmful to minors. His personal blog with some raunchy stories? Probably doesn't qualify.
Third, the whole "fifteen years in prison" hysteria ignores that these are civil penalties, not criminal prosecutions for most violations. And interstate prosecution for a California blogger? Extremely unlikely.
Age verification requirements do create real burdens and privacy concerns. But Ellsberg's "the sky is falling" rhetoric makes it impossible to have a serious conversation about the actual trade-offs between protecting kids and preserving adult access to legal content. The Court tried to balance these competing interests—it didn't burn down the First Amendment.
Dismissing this as a “meltdown” ignores the real First Amendment stakes. Requiring ID to access legal adult content isn’t like buying alcohol. It introduces surveillance and self-censorship, especially with vague thresholds like “one-third explicit” or “harmful to minors.” That legal ambiguity alone forces smaller publishers to self-censor to avoid risk. Unlike alcohol, speech is a constitutionally protected right, not a regulated commodity. Buying beer doesn’t create a permanent record of your interests or route through third-party identity brokers.
Whether or not speech is the explicit target, the chilling effect is the outcome and likely the intent. Lawmakers know these rules shrink the space for controversial content online. The burden and fear do the censoring for them. That’s not hysteria it’s how digital speech is throttled.
The "chilling effect" argument here is pretty weak. You're basically saying that because some small publishers might get confused about legal requirements, the whole system is unconstitutional. That's not how First Amendment analysis works. Courts don't strike down laws just because some people might overreact to them.
If this really created such massive chilling effects, we'd see data showing widespread site shutdowns or self-censorship. (Checks pornhub). Instead, we mostly see compliance.
Chilling effects are settled doctrine, not hand-waving. SCOTUS struck the CDA (Reno v. ACLU, 1997) and COPA (Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2004) precisely because vague “indecent/harmful” standards plus stiff penalties make rational speakers self-censor. Courts don’t wait for carnage. The predictable chill itself is the constitutional flaw.
We already have hard evidence of chill. Pornhub, one of the few players with the budget to fight, has geoblocked Utah, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Montana, and about ten other states. Sixteen in total as of mid-2025 rather than risk strict-liability fines. That’s exit, not “compliance.” Smaller publishers just disappear quietly. Their absence isn’t a data gap, it’s the effect you’re denying.
You flipped the First Amendment burden. For content-based rules, the state must prove narrow tailoring and minimal speech impact under strict scrutiny. Demanding that speakers first produce a body count of shuttered sites inverts that standard and dodges the real constitutional test.
That’s why your “show me shutdowns” line doesn’t work: the shutdowns are already happening, and the law not the speakers has the burden to justify them.
Intermediate not strict scrutiny
This isn't only about H.B. 1181 specifically, it's about precedent for any law like it having teeth across state lines.
The ruling was not about anyone being prosecuted over state lines. So there was no precedent set.
It's a foot in the door law. First they just "ask for ID", then they "save it permanently for warrants", then they "must upload all ID to Texas' ID servers and a list of all pornography viewed" to protect the children from known deviants. These sorts do not stop at "ID verification", they want to morally control every aspect of your life down to your bedroom activities.
It's funny that stuff like this flies under the radar, while HN users are still splitting hairs over cookie banners and Manifest V3. A week-old ruling comes as imminent surprise to the Hackers and their cohorts.
Just looking at HN's frontpage, you'd have no idea that anyone here cares about privacy or freedom.
You must be hurting from patting yourself in the back. You should first remember that front page is a matter not only of interest to the community, but timing, luck and moment. It's meaningless that it took a week to be in the front page. It's there now and we are discussing it. And it also doesn't diminish the value of other discussions that is dear to HN readers.
If you feel like antagonizing an entire community, maybe you should consider just leaving it and finding your own group. It'll be hard for us but we'll make it here without you.
I haven’t seen this aspect of the ruling discussed anywhere else either, so I don’t know why you’re picking on HN in particular.
It received 200+ comments at the time it happened... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397799
Exposure != Accumulated comments, especially if you aren't counting distinct authors.
Dig a little deeper, and you'll see that particular submission ("US Supreme Court Upholds Texas Porn ID Law") was visible on the front page for barely five minutes [0] before something abruptly exiled it to to the end of the second page and a slide into obscurity.
In contrast, I randomly picked something from several pages down today that which looks bland with triple-digit comments, and got "A Typology of Candianisms." Turns out that has even more comments (327!) and was visible on the front page for about twenty hours [1].
Quite a difference, isn't it? I'm not against the idea that HN needs to guard its content-mix, but we should not live in denial about it happening.
This is on the front page.
It's a week-old secondary source that had to editorialize the title.
If this is "news" then tomorrow I should expect to see articles reporting Lincoln's death at the top of /active.
Where should we turn to be more promptly and fully informed about questions like these?
A week old? That's practically ancient, and certainly no longer applies to the situation today!
It's right on the front page of HN and there's a lively discussion. I'm just not sure your criticism holds up.
It's kind of funny to be whining about this in a frontpage post here, but that aside, this doesn't add anything to discussion. You should probably keep these things to yourself.
What sites/communities keep up with things like this more actively? I’d love to read them too. Drop a link!
That's because we're hackers and we're too cool to be bothered with pesky politics. /s
On a more serious note: HN tries hard to stay in its lane, but there are quite a few people on here that are engaging in political activism, but that every now and then make a (sometimes even useful) tech comment to avoid the activism ban hammer.
Personally I don't really see the difference between 'curious conversation' vs 'click bait' and 'rage bait'. Examples abound, but the balance as it is struck right now picks a reasonable median between 400 hour work weeks for the people involved and some kind of manageable work/life balance. It works, but barely and it is still worth reading but I find myself getting more and more cynical reading HN. Oh, and of course we really don't do humor.
And some people here really do care about both privacy and freedom, and some people are not absolutists but rather see that there are reasonable limits to both of these. Another thing to remember is that HN is global, you're going to find a predominantly English speaking audience here but so many people around the world manage to express themselves reasonably well in English that you will find all kinds of cultures represented here, including ones that have entirely different ideas on subjects such as freedom and privacy. And then there are the tech bros who want freedom and privacy for themselves and less of both of those for the rest of us.
Meh they can take the bottom 64bits of your IP address and then put your biometrics in there. Why do you think they made the address space so big in the first place. I've been saying that's what it was for for at least a decade.
>ELLSBERG
On a sociological level: good. I personally believe that easy-access porn has been detrimental to society.
It really hasn’t and there’s absolutely no evidence to support this at all
So you're saying that human relationships in our society are working really well, have no problems and should continue without changes?
Porn is one of the big contributors to many negative effects we see today. Seeing how many problems porn sites cause, I say should be banned immediately.
Of course, people watching porn/addicted to it, won't want it to go away. Similar to drug addicts don't want drugs to be banned.
[flagged]
I imagine they were referring to the behavior of cis men
Secondly, it's not clear which group you're bigoted over—trans folks or drag queens
[flagged]
Transgendered folks are people who identify as a gender other than how they were born.
Drag queens are men who prefer to dress as women sometimes but who identify as men. Like, FBI director Edgar Hoover.
I immediately scrolled to the bottom of the HN comments so I could find a comment like this to upvote.
[flagged]
In practice this is going to be utilized to shut down sex education and other content deemed "harmful to children".
States have had these laws for a while now. Is there evidence that this has happened?
[flagged]
We're there. We're long past there. Start solving.
Do you have any examples of the finding being used to stymy sex education in schools?
There are many, many, many examples of every previous round of censorship in the name of "Think of the Children" being used against anything disliked by people in power, and filtered through the lens of the most conservative backwards puritans. Take a look at any banned book list.
This is not a slippery slope fallacy, it's basic pattern recognition.
> There are many, many, many examples of every previous round of censorship in the name of "Think of the Children" being used against anything disliked by people in power
Do you have any available?
https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/
https://bookshop.org/lists/banned-and-challenged-books-updat...
None of these are sex education books.
The comment upthread was:
> In practice this is going to be utilized to shut down sex education and other content deemed "harmful to children".
Many of the books on the lists I linked, and many other such lists, are in fact educational in a variety of ways. Often they're banned precisely because they cover topics that people in power don't want there to be any education on.
(And, to be clear, this comment should not be interpreted as in any way supporting the idea that a book should need to be "educational", or have any other redeeming quality, in order to not be banned.)
"Sex education" is not so narrow as to only include an approved/mandated textbook (though those and their content do get affected by these attitudes as well). Having e.g. healthy relationships (or for that matter unhealthy relationships) depicted or described in fiction is part of a well-rounded education.
It's also remarkable, and ironic, how often depictions of dystopias, particularly dystopias that restrict books and other access to information, get banned.
And, frankly, banning something misses the opportunity to contextualize it and talk about it, and instead makes it more appealing.
> TeH iNtErNeT
Don't do this on HN. It's sneering and snark, and thus against the guidelines.
Maybe but it was part of my point, that the internet gets a pass for a vague variety of reasons.
We’re just trying for something better here, and this is only a place where people want to participate because of the people who make the effort to make it better.