4 ms·
The history on this is really clear: when you create a "for your safety" speech control, it gets used for all sorts of other stuff. In my dataset of free-speec
by kelseyfrog 1y ago
The history on this is really clear: when you create a "for your safety" speech control, it gets used for all sorts of other stuff.
In my dataset of free-speech limiting examples for safety reasons, 89% eventually expanded in scope to limit speech relating to LGBTQ, feminist, women's health, and politics. This isn't a hypothetical - it happens over and over again. Each time we have folk pointing this out, and each time we have people saying, "You're overreacting."
ZKP or not, if you make Chekhov's gun, someone's going to use it. Privacy isn’t the point. Unless your ZKP also magically prevents scope creep and political misuse, hard pass from me.
It’s like going to the gunsmith and saying, "Don’t build Chekhov another gun, you know it’s going to go off," and he just shrugs and says, "There’s no way it happens a twentieth time."
- rpdillon 1y agoWe don't always agree, but this is spot on. Administrations change, but system of surveillance and control persist. Just because we can imagine a way for a system to do good does not mean it will mostly be used for good.
- throwaway290 1y agoCan you overview how this limits free speech? And where do you find examples similar to age checks in the past for it to be checkov's gun? When you say even if this helps protect the children (which from what I've seen, probably yes) you are against it anyway, I would put your objection before the end of that sentence
- kelseyfrog 1y agoI'm going to give you a homework assignment. Find twenty examples of free-speech limiting laws, policies, or practices. Then go through each one and determine if it was also used to limit political speech, feminist or LGBTQ related speech, or information on women's health. Report back with your findings.
- throwaway290 1y agoI won't do it because it is offtopic until I understand why this is speech limiting. So if you can show how it's speech limiting please enlighten
- kelseyfrog 1y agoThis exercise will explain the answer to your question and give you the background needed to understand it. Please, don't be willfully ignorant to prove a point.
- throwaway290 1y agoYou still trying to prove a point that free speech limiting laws will limit feminist/LGBT topics. I literally never argued with that. Try to prove how age screening limits free speech and we can continue
- kelseyfrog 1y agoI see what you're doing here. You're narrowing the scope of the argument in order to make a specific point. This is a common rhetorical move, especially in legislative debates: "Because this exact bill hasn’t passed, you can’t point to any real-world failures." I get it, and I understand your logic, but it misses the bigger picture. The conversation is about the broader category of laws that limit speech. Treating age verification as if it's completely separate from the patterns and risks we've seen in speech-limiting legislation is, honestly, a weak position. Age verification requirements aren't immune to scope creep or abuse. They’re subject to the same risks as any other law that restricts speech. I know you can make a stronger argument than this. Besides, if you did your homework, you would find the examples you're looking for.
- throwaway290 1y agoThen let's just not have laws if it's such a slippery slope.