10 ms·

The EARN IT act will ban LGBT-related content and discussions on the internet

43 points by notRobot 5y ago

notRobot 5y ago
See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/sjsih3/the_earn_it_act_has_been_reintroduced_please_read/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/sjsih3/the_earn_it_ac...
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  This reddit link had a petition of a pro pedophilia group (prostasia foundation) against it. I don't think it does any favours for people who agree dangerous information online needs to be dealt with.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notananthem 5y ago
    Did you misread "mozilla" as "protasia"
    - genericone 5y ago
      From the reddit post: *UPDATE 3: The Prostasia Foundation is likely pro-map, so I deleted the link. I am dearly sorry to those I made sign that petition. The link is also not working for some people, so I replaced it with the Mozilla one.
throwawayvibes 5y ago
- AnEro 5y ago
noughtme 5y ago
I'm all for tumblr not breaking the back button.
philtar 5y ago
- brysonreece 5y ago
  Are you seriously implying that being LGBT is a mental health issue? I’m opposed to the restriction of content online that doesn’t inherently infringe on someone else’s liberties or body, personal opinions be damned. It’s asinine to believe that an entire Internet worth of people should have their accessibility to content limited because “I don’t like this.”
  - philtar 5y ago
    - dang 5y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - wtfpost 5y ago
- fortyseven 5y ago
wtfpost 5y ago
MathCodeLove 5y ago
What kind of ridiculously sensationalized title (and blog post) is this? The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?
- thebradbain 5y ago
  It takes almost no measures against child pornography specifically while essentially ending encryption (or moving encryption to a “first prove you’re not using it for harm” approach) and allowing an unelected commission to essentially define what is and what is not considered inappropriate for the internet to view The bill is pushed by anti-lgbtq/religious groups under the guise of protecting children, similar to the failed California ballot measure pushed by religious groups in 2016 to require all porn viewed in California to feature the usage of condoms under the guise of promoting safe sexual practices (and allow individuals who witnessed such a video to personally sue the content provider), yet was actually a thinly veiled attempt to shut down the entire porn industry in California, where it was essentially invented. Both of these cases should and likely would be thrown out by the Supreme Court as a direct threat against the first amendment, but who knows anymore.
  - noughtme 5y ago
    IANAL, so can someone please explain this section: “(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider— “(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services; “(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or “(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.”.
  - 5y ago
notananthem 5y ago
Topics like this always remind me the actual agenda of tech/fin folks- social conservatism
- _qbjt 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - iamdamian 5y ago
    That hasn't been my experience at all over 10+ years.
    - krapp 5y ago
      You can literally just scroll down and see it.
      - spacechild1 5y ago
        Already heavily downvoted and soon dead.
        krapp 5y ago
        The fact that it's there to begin with is still a problem. The fact that you have to keep stomping cockroaches doesn't mean your house isn't infested.
        spacechild1 5y ago
        Homophobia exists and we have to fight it. That's the sad reality. Yes, homophobic comments are harmful and reading can already do damage. But what can we do apart from downvoting/flagging?
        DoktorDelta 5y ago
        banning?
E2EEd 5y ago
Apple's on-device scanning experiment failed miserably. It was (at least, co-opted as) a litmus test for working around the post-Snowden E2EE-at-scale status quo in which we find ourselves. I don't have enough background to understand the implications of EARN IT for the LGBT community. What is occuring, though, is a lack of common ground between libertarians and law enforcement: If the tech idealists and law enforcement types fail to find common ground to develop robust compromises, EARN IT, which will be implemented sub-optimally out of convenience, will have the negative consequences noted by the techno-libertarian crowd. However, a sound compromise does exist. It's just that nobody is talking about it, because most folks have strong opinions at one end or the other. The "edge", as it may be, is slated to introduce tens of trillions in new tech value in the coming decades -- all in support of hyperscale networking. It's a chance to find robust solutions that satisfy most parties, but not if the libertarians maintain the hard-line. It's up to the tech community to develop responsible encryption recovery techniques, because clearly law enforcement and congress are too provincial to understand what's at stake. Yet, by maintaining the hard line, congress will get their way, and we'll be less safe as a result. Responsible encryption recovery is possible if you throw out the existing mechanisms of centralization along with "trust us, we're the NSA" mentality. Build your techniques around ideas that reject centralization, and reject mathematically unauditable recovery schemes. Reject techniques that exclude civil libertarians from the systems of checks and balances needed. I say this with urgency because finding common ground is the only way we'll achieve a more responsible system of oversight for policing our private comms.
- salawat 5y ago
  Not. One. Inch. You'll claw my privacy from my cold dead hands. Tech will tend to centralize over time and be incredibly attractive to those with an authoritarian bent. The world must respect that no, not even the entirety of the rest of the world wanting to be privy to the content of a communique is an acceptable reason to crack open a pair of people's shared comm over a technological link. The price of Liberty is vigilance eternal; and home of the brave means nothing if we're too cowardly to allow others tge right to organize and think without forcing an in for the authorities in every technological medium. There are lines, and I, for one, will not budge on this one. No matter the price.
krapp 5y ago
The text of the bill itself[0] [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...
anamax 5y ago
What's the problem? Everyone knows that EARN IT is aimed at Trump, white supremacists, and anti-vaxxers.
cdot2 5y ago
Ive read through the bill and I dont see what everyone is concerned about. There's a committee with no power, slight wording changes, and generic anti cp stuff. What are we supposed to be mad at?
- errantmind 5y ago
  It has no power.. yet. Better to not have a commission in the first place, especially when it will likely be used to generate witch-hunts on demand
- throwawayvibes 5y ago
  It would give legal basis to ban the virtue signaling trans-topic flame-baiting posters from forums without the fear of getting cancelled. This is a good thing. It helps gatekeep small, niche communities that have been infested by people looking to cancel top developers, maintainers, project leaders.
kant_adorn_arts 5y ago
Though it purports to address some of society’s worst crimes, in reality, the EARN It Act will do far more harm than good. It will jeopardize the privacy of every American, fundamentally alter the freedom of our online communications, and, potentially, undermine the very prosecutions it seeks to enable. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposition-s-3398-earn-it-act https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposition-s-3398-earn-it-a...

43 points by notRobot 5y ago

See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/sjsih3/the_earn_it_act_has_been_reintroduced_please_read/ https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/sjsih3/the_earn_it_ac...

Dma54rhs 5y ago
This reddit link had a petition of a pro pedophilia group (prostasia foundation) against it. I don't think it does any favours for people who agree dangerous information online needs to be dealt with.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notananthem 5y ago
  Did you misread "mozilla" as "protasia"
  - genericone 5y ago
    From the reddit post: *UPDATE 3: The Prostasia Foundation is likely pro-map, so I deleted the link. I am dearly sorry to those I made sign that petition. The link is also not working for some people, so I replaced it with the Mozilla one.

throwawayvibes 5y ago

AnEro 5y ago

noughtme 5y ago

I'm all for tumblr not breaking the back button.

philtar 5y ago

brysonreece 5y ago
Are you seriously implying that being LGBT is a mental health issue? I’m opposed to the restriction of content online that doesn’t inherently infringe on someone else’s liberties or body, personal opinions be damned. It’s asinine to believe that an entire Internet worth of people should have their accessibility to content limited because “I don’t like this.”
- philtar 5y ago
  - dang 5y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- wtfpost 5y ago
fortyseven 5y ago

wtfpost 5y ago

MathCodeLove 5y ago

What kind of ridiculously sensationalized title (and blog post) is this? The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?

thebradbain 5y ago
It takes almost no measures against child pornography specifically while essentially ending encryption (or moving encryption to a “first prove you’re not using it for harm” approach) and allowing an unelected commission to essentially define what is and what is not considered inappropriate for the internet to view The bill is pushed by anti-lgbtq/religious groups under the guise of protecting children, similar to the failed California ballot measure pushed by religious groups in 2016 to require all porn viewed in California to feature the usage of condoms under the guise of promoting safe sexual practices (and allow individuals who witnessed such a video to personally sue the content provider), yet was actually a thinly veiled attempt to shut down the entire porn industry in California, where it was essentially invented. Both of these cases should and likely would be thrown out by the Supreme Court as a direct threat against the first amendment, but who knows anymore.
- noughtme 5y ago
  IANAL, so can someone please explain this section: “(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the provider— “(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services; “(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a communication; or “(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other encryption services.”.
- 5y ago

notananthem 5y ago

Topics like this always remind me the actual agenda of tech/fin folks- social conservatism

_qbjt 5y ago
[flagged]
- iamdamian 5y ago
  That hasn't been my experience at all over 10+ years.
  - krapp 5y ago
    You can literally just scroll down and see it.
    - spacechild1 5y ago
      Already heavily downvoted and soon dead.
      - krapp 5y ago
        The fact that it's there to begin with is still a problem. The fact that you have to keep stomping cockroaches doesn't mean your house isn't infested.
        spacechild1 5y ago
        Homophobia exists and we have to fight it. That's the sad reality. Yes, homophobic comments are harmful and reading can already do damage. But what can we do apart from downvoting/flagging?
        DoktorDelta 5y ago
        banning?

E2EEd 5y ago

Apple's on-device scanning experiment failed miserably. It was (at least, co-opted as) a litmus test for working around the post-Snowden E2EE-at-scale status quo in which we find ourselves. I don't have enough background to understand the implications of EARN IT for the LGBT community. What is occuring, though, is a lack of common ground between libertarians and law enforcement: If the tech idealists and law enforcement types fail to find common ground to develop robust compromises, EARN IT, which will be implemented sub-optimally out of convenience, will have the negative consequences noted by the techno-libertarian crowd. However, a sound compromise does exist. It's just that nobody is talking about it, because most folks have strong opinions at one end or the other. The "edge", as it may be, is slated to introduce tens of trillions in new tech value in the coming decades -- all in support of hyperscale networking. It's a chance to find robust solutions that satisfy most parties, but not if the libertarians maintain the hard-line. It's up to the tech community to develop responsible encryption recovery techniques, because clearly law enforcement and congress are too provincial to understand what's at stake. Yet, by maintaining the hard line, congress will get their way, and we'll be less safe as a result. Responsible encryption recovery is possible if you throw out the existing mechanisms of centralization along with "trust us, we're the NSA" mentality. Build your techniques around ideas that reject centralization, and reject mathematically unauditable recovery schemes. Reject techniques that exclude civil libertarians from the systems of checks and balances needed. I say this with urgency because finding common ground is the only way we'll achieve a more responsible system of oversight for policing our private comms.

salawat 5y ago
Not. One. Inch. You'll claw my privacy from my cold dead hands. Tech will tend to centralize over time and be incredibly attractive to those with an authoritarian bent. The world must respect that no, not even the entirety of the rest of the world wanting to be privy to the content of a communique is an acceptable reason to crack open a pair of people's shared comm over a technological link. The price of Liberty is vigilance eternal; and home of the brave means nothing if we're too cowardly to allow others tge right to organize and think without forcing an in for the authorities in every technological medium. There are lines, and I, for one, will not budge on this one. No matter the price.

krapp 5y ago

The text of the bill itself[0] [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/339...

anamax 5y ago

What's the problem? Everyone knows that EARN IT is aimed at Trump, white supremacists, and anti-vaxxers.

cdot2 5y ago

Ive read through the bill and I dont see what everyone is concerned about. There's a committee with no power, slight wording changes, and generic anti cp stuff. What are we supposed to be mad at?

errantmind 5y ago
It has no power.. yet. Better to not have a commission in the first place, especially when it will likely be used to generate witch-hunts on demand
throwawayvibes 5y ago
It would give legal basis to ban the virtue signaling trans-topic flame-baiting posters from forums without the fear of getting cancelled. This is a good thing. It helps gatekeep small, niche communities that have been infested by people looking to cancel top developers, maintainers, project leaders.

kant_adorn_arts 5y ago

Though it purports to address some of society’s worst crimes, in reality, the EARN It Act will do far more harm than good. It will jeopardize the privacy of every American, fundamentally alter the freedom of our online communications, and, potentially, undermine the very prosecutions it seeks to enable. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposition-s-3398-earn-it-act https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-opposition-s-3398-earn-it-a...