7 ms·

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the

That was, in fact, what COPA mandated in the US in 1998, and SCOTUS struck it down as too onerous in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, kicking off the last 20 years of essentially completely unregulated Internet porn commercially available to children with nothing more than clicking an "I'm 18" button. At the time, filtering was seen as a better solution. Nowadays filtering is basically impossible thanks to TLS (with things like DoH and ECH being deployed to lock that down even further), apps that ignore user CAs and use attestation to lock out owner control, cloud CDNs, TLS fingerprinting, and extreme consolidation of social media (e.g. discord being for both minecraft discussions and furry porn).

Dylan16807 2y ago
Despite TLS, filtering is easier to set up now than it was in 1998. You might have to block some apps in the short term, but if you suggest apps can avoid age verification if they stop pinning certificates then they'll jump at the option. Consolidation is the only tricky part that's new.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Filtering has never been easy or practical for the general public. But the situation has become much worse. In 1998 it was easy for a family to have no computer at all, or to put their single computer in the living room where it could be supervised. Internet use was limited because it tied up the phone line. These factors made it easy for parents to supervise their children. Today, computers are everywhere, fit in your pocket, and its very easy to get online. Even if you don't buy any computer for your children (which is hard, because your children will tell you that they're getting bullied and socially ostracized, which probably won't even be a lie!) they will probably be given a computer by their school and any filters on that computer will inevitability be circumvented. And even if that doesn't happen, they can trade or buy one of their peers old phones and use that on free WiFi to access the internet without you knowing it. Are you going to thoroughly search their belongings every week? If you do, they'll know and find ways to hide it anyway. And yes, I know kids used to procure and hide porno mags. What they have access to on the internet is a lot more extreme than a tattered playboy.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
    Seems like a reasonable argument to ban encryption rather than actually parent your children. As a conservative voter with nothing to hide, I’m in.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      Banning encryption that the device owner can't control actually seems like a great idea. So e.g. for TLS it should be easy to install a CA and MITM filtering proxy as an admin user and all applications must trust that CA.
      - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
        I non sarcastically agree that communication obfuscation should not prevent owner access to comms, but that’s not really the point I was making.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interests back in the early 2000s. That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
  - rapind 2y ago
    There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost. This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster. These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.
stavros 2y ago
[flagged]
- Aeglaecia 2y ago
  it is recommended not to employ sarcasm when counterpoints are easily available
  - stavros 2y ago
    Unfortunately, when counterpoints are easily available, I expect the person to have already thought of them, hence the sarcasm.
    - redczar 2y ago
      Edited to delete my comment. I was mistaken about who was replying to who. As such my comment was entirely wrong.
      - stavros 2y ago
        Please point me to where the original comment mentioned anything about violence.
        redczar 2y ago
        Thought the comment in question was a reply to loic. The mistake is mine.
        stavros 2y ago
        Ah, fair enough, that's an easy mistake to make, I've replied to the wrong comment many times too.
      - dmurray 2y ago
        What? There's zero suggestion in ndriscoll's comment that he's talking about "extremely violent porn". The most specific he gets is "furry porn", which might be a kink you don't approve of but is not obviously more objectionable than "people having sex".
uconnectlol 2y ago
lets just skip straight to the logical conclusion, buddy. no amount of "web" or "discord" regulation stops porn consumption. the statistic of "minors viewing porn" wouldn't be affected even slightly, even if all of the regulation in question here were passed to the fullest extent. this is because people can just download and run whatever software they want, and communicate with any party they want. what you want is for people to not have control over their computers/communications made from them. people talk about a middle ground, but there is none, because you will always just notice that the "minors viewing porn" statistic is not affected by your latest law, until you have absolute control over civilian communications. this is completely against what anyone in the open source community let alone democracy, stand for.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  Right. My friends in middle school would trade floppies with porn on them, which older students and siblings would be happy to provide.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  My complaint was exactly that with modern devices, the owner does not have absolute control over communication on the device, and that's a problem. I think anyone in the open source community or people that believe in democracy would agree that e.g. the owner of a phone or computer should absolutely have the ability to intercept, record, manipulate, and filter all communication that device is doing.
- droopyEyelids 2y ago
  Do you believe the ease with which a service can be used influences the amount of people who use that service? Like with marginal users?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bbohyeha 2y ago
[dead]

Dylan16807 2y ago

Despite TLS, filtering is easier to set up now than it was in 1998. You might have to block some apps in the short term, but if you suggest apps can avoid age verification if they stop pinning certificates then they'll jump at the option. Consolidation is the only tricky part that's new.

lupusreal 2y ago
Filtering has never been easy or practical for the general public. But the situation has become much worse. In 1998 it was easy for a family to have no computer at all, or to put their single computer in the living room where it could be supervised. Internet use was limited because it tied up the phone line. These factors made it easy for parents to supervise their children. Today, computers are everywhere, fit in your pocket, and its very easy to get online. Even if you don't buy any computer for your children (which is hard, because your children will tell you that they're getting bullied and socially ostracized, which probably won't even be a lie!) they will probably be given a computer by their school and any filters on that computer will inevitability be circumvented. And even if that doesn't happen, they can trade or buy one of their peers old phones and use that on free WiFi to access the internet without you knowing it. Are you going to thoroughly search their belongings every week? If you do, they'll know and find ways to hide it anyway. And yes, I know kids used to procure and hide porno mags. What they have access to on the internet is a lot more extreme than a tattered playboy.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  Seems like a reasonable argument to ban encryption rather than actually parent your children. As a conservative voter with nothing to hide, I’m in.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Banning encryption that the device owner can't control actually seems like a great idea. So e.g. for TLS it should be easy to install a CA and MITM filtering proxy as an admin user and all applications must trust that CA.
    - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
      I non sarcastically agree that communication obfuscation should not prevent owner access to comms, but that’s not really the point I was making.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

This has already come up before the Supreme Court, with the argument that filtering was a less invasive technique to fulfill the government’s legitimate interests back in the early 2000s. That ship has sailed. Even the opposition admits that trying to get everyone to filter is not going to work and is functionally insignificant. The only question is whether age verification is still too onerous.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 2y ago
> trying to get everyone to filter We never needed everyone to filter, just parents busy lobbying the government to impose crap onto every possible service and website across the entire world. Instead, they should purchase devices for their kids that have a child-lock and client-side filters. All sites have to do is add an HTTP header loosely characterizing it's content. 1. Most of the dollar costs of making it all happen will be paid by the people who actually need/use the feature. 2. No toxic Orwellian panopticon. 3. Key enforcement falls into a realm non-technical parents can actually observe and act upon: What device is little Timmy holding? 4. Every site in the world will not need a monthly update to handle Elbonia's rite of manhood on the 17th lunar year to make it permitted to see bare ankles. Instead, parents of that region/religion can download their own damn plugin.
- rapind 2y ago
  There's a peer / social issue at play as well though. If you believe that smart phones are disastrous for kids (I happen to think so), and don't allow your 13yo daughter to have one, you are pretty much forcing her to be the odd one out. Maybe that's OK for some parents, but you can't deny that this cost exists. Preventing your son from playing certain video games that all of his friends enjoy also has a social cost. This is why I think it's great when schools ban phones in class. When left up to the parents individually it's an absolute disaster. These are just some specific examples of where I the nanny state can be beneficial. For most things in general though I'd also prefer people govern themselves (and their kids) whenever possible.

stavros 2y ago

[flagged]

Aeglaecia 2y ago
it is recommended not to employ sarcasm when counterpoints are easily available
- stavros 2y ago
  Unfortunately, when counterpoints are easily available, I expect the person to have already thought of them, hence the sarcasm.
  - redczar 2y ago
    Edited to delete my comment. I was mistaken about who was replying to who. As such my comment was entirely wrong.
    - stavros 2y ago
      Please point me to where the original comment mentioned anything about violence.
      - redczar 2y ago
        Thought the comment in question was a reply to loic. The mistake is mine.
        stavros 2y ago
        Ah, fair enough, that's an easy mistake to make, I've replied to the wrong comment many times too.
    - dmurray 2y ago
      What? There's zero suggestion in ndriscoll's comment that he's talking about "extremely violent porn". The most specific he gets is "furry porn", which might be a kink you don't approve of but is not obviously more objectionable than "people having sex".

uconnectlol 2y ago

lets just skip straight to the logical conclusion, buddy. no amount of "web" or "discord" regulation stops porn consumption. the statistic of "minors viewing porn" wouldn't be affected even slightly, even if all of the regulation in question here were passed to the fullest extent. this is because people can just download and run whatever software they want, and communicate with any party they want. what you want is for people to not have control over their computers/communications made from them. people talk about a middle ground, but there is none, because you will always just notice that the "minors viewing porn" statistic is not affected by your latest law, until you have absolute control over civilian communications. this is completely against what anyone in the open source community let alone democracy, stand for.

pavel_lishin 2y ago
Right. My friends in middle school would trade floppies with porn on them, which older students and siblings would be happy to provide.
ndriscoll 2y ago
My complaint was exactly that with modern devices, the owner does not have absolute control over communication on the device, and that's a problem. I think anyone in the open source community or people that believe in democracy would agree that e.g. the owner of a phone or computer should absolutely have the ability to intercept, record, manipulate, and filter all communication that device is doing.
droopyEyelids 2y ago
Do you believe the ease with which a service can be used influences the amount of people who use that service? Like with marginal users?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bbohyeha 2y ago

[dead]