7 ms·
Judge to Texas: You Can't Age-Gate the Internet Without Evidence
- prokopton 10mo agoWe age gate other things that are genuinely useful but can be harmful when used incorrectly or with malice. Given how much trouble you can cause with an Internet connection, I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already.
- k12sosse 10mo agoAge gate positions of power, that is, you can't hold them after you're 55
- nine_k 10mo agoIt's discrimination, should be 65 like everywhere else. Seriously, I won't limit the maximum age, but would rather use a cognitive ability assessment. It in fact already exists, e.g. as the TV debates for presidential candidates. Were the voters paying attention,..
- paulryanrogers 10mo agoIsn't the median like 65 already? Seems like it's closer to the minimum.
- themafia 10mo ago> We age gate other harmful objects: firearms, alcohol, driving, et cetera. We can easily prove those have harms. > trouble you can cause with an Internet connection Why don't we age gate hands? Number one source of human problems right there. Perhaps we should outfit our children like Harrison Bergeron until they reach the age of majority?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- stackghost 10mo ago>Why don't we age gate hands? Making this sort of reductio ad absurdum doesn't make you seem witty or clever. It just makes you seem pedantic and unable to reason about things like a functioning adult.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- antonvs 10mo agoThat might be the case if they weren't correct. I notice you didn't actually say anything about what's wrong with the point.
- stackghost 10mo agoDo I really need to waste my time explaining why age-gating hands is not feasible, realistic, or even worth considering? Really?
- antonvs 10mo agoYou should look up the word "analogy". Do I really need to waste my time explaining why age-gating the internet is not feasible, realistic, or even worth considering? Really?
- Cytobit 10mo agoAd hominem attacks can't be much better.
- jswelker 10mo agoI thought it was witty and clever.
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
- nine_k 10mo agoHuman bare hands and teeth can be lethal if used skillfully. I wonder why isn't operating them age-gated. Speaking can do a lot of harm, from emotional distress to swindling a victim out of millions through a scam. World's safest place is a solitary confinement cell. It comes with some downsides though.
- droopyEyelids 10mo ago> I wonder why isn't operating them age-gated. It is! Have you met a baby before... no teeth, severely diminished strength and muscle control
- Waterluvian 10mo agoIt would be like age gating a library.
- paulryanrogers 10mo agoKids cannot check out adult materials. Nor can they attend a library alone until middle school. (At least around here.)
- Waterluvian 10mo agoI guess the already normalized lack of liberty shouldn’t surprise me anymore.
- Spooky23 10mo agoWhere do you live? My son got his first library card at 5 and walked over there by himself when he was 6 or 7. Middle school is way too late to build good reading habits. What a shame.
- paulryanrogers 10mo agoI live in the Midwest US. Plenty of kids can and do walk to our library. Though younger ones who come alone are questioned for their own safety.
- ctxc 10mo agoSurely you must see the difference between what is a utility and...firearms and alcohol?
- bevr1337 10mo agoInternet service is age gated by the provider and the prerequisites like a physical address and bank account
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- toast0 10mo agoIf you've got cash, you can go to Walmart and setup a prepaid cell phone with internet access. No ID or address required.
- superkuh 10mo agoThese are exactly the harmful and dangerous consequences of the social memes going around with delusions that 'screens' are harmful and that somehow multi-media from screens, despite not having any mechanism to directly alter incentive salience in any way, is just like addictive incentive salience altering drugs like cocaine. When you use phrases like "internet addiction" "social media addiction" and the like these are the government uses of force you are supporting. The judge asking for concrete evidence of these harms and them being unable to provide them, or even a hint of them probably won't change people's perceptions. Just look in this very comment thread for those ignoring the fact the entire article is about lack of proof of harms. Because of this delusional grassroots support of the concept the authoritarian governments will just keep throwing this scientifically unsupported feces against the wall till it sticks. There's big money in the treatment camps (the anti-gay conversion camp people's new scam), etc, and big potential in the censorship and control of information.
- TZubiri 10mo agoI have always been chronically online, but now I'm online seeing stupid short form videos for hours on end, and everyone around me is doing the same. Half the population watching 4 hours of short form content online is a problem.
- burnt-resistor 10mo agoIt's a slippery slope into big mother, arrogant removal of freedoms claiming they "know what's best for you better than you".
- LorenPechtel 10mo agoWe throw around terms like this because we see a very real effect even though we do not know all the details. Worst is probably the feedback system. The social media is optimized to show you things it thinks you will look at. More of what you're interested in on the surface sounds like a good thing, but it ends up very able to lead people down rabbit holes. Do not take this as supporting what Texas is trying to do, though--this isn't about harm, this is about exposing opposition.
- ronbenton 10mo agoThis identity verification business for porn sites is a nightmare for privacy. Will just result in more personal info being hacked and blackmail given the subject matter.
- TZubiri 10mo agoA novel approach would be to verify age and then discard identity records, which is standard in the brick and mortar equivalents like bars.
- mixmastamyk 10mo agoOne place tried to scan my id recently. Hopefully others will speak up against it but I am not optimistic.
- PeterHolzwarth 10mo agoThis is why I don't by alcohol online for delivery: the delivery person is required by their company to scan my ID. Places I order from already know enough about me - they don't also need a copy of my identification.
- BrenBarn 10mo agoInteresting. I order alcohol online and have never had that happen.
- arthurfm 10mo agoIn the UK all delivery apps [0][1][2] will prompt the driver/rider to ask for ID when the customer purchases age-restricted items like alcohol or cigarettes. I am not sure why the apps don't get the customer to upload a photo of their ID once rather than get the delivery person to request it for every restricted order? It wastes so much time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYEC_ooaC5A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYEC_ooaC5A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILzfEaSiYf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILzfEaSiYf4 [0] https://riders.deliveroo.co.uk/en/delivering-alcohol https://riders.deliveroo.co.uk/en/delivering-alcohol [1] https://help.uber.com/en-GB/ubereats/restaurants/article/how-do-i-order-alcohol-on-uber-eats?nodeId=10fc02c8-9162-4e32-9c22-19464b6ddbec https://help.uber.com/en-GB/ubereats/restaurants/article/how... [2] https://courier-help.just-eat.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/10329003803549-Age-restricted-Items-delivery-FAQs https://courier-help.just-eat.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/103290...
- ronbenton 10mo agoA good saying I heard recently is that the first amendment doesn’t exist to protect the speech you like, it exists to protect the speech you hate.
- jfengel 10mo agoNot necessarily. According to the Supreme Court, "implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance". That seems asinine to me, and it's just one in a long line of reasons to hold the court in utter contempt. But they're in charge and I'm not.
- KPGv2 10mo ago> That seems asinine to me Until you realize that child pornography would be protected by the First Amendment without obscenity carved out. The Miller Test is what defines obscenity, and it seems pretty reasonable to me: is it about gross sex according to the average person (not the most Karen person), and does it lack serious literary, political, scientific, or artistic merit. Honestly, I'm not aware of a Supreme Court case that held something to be obscene that was IMO wrongly decided. Pornography is fine. Even lolicon (cartoon sex of children) has been protected under the First Amendment and not deemed obscene.
- ethbr1 10mo agoThe problem with opening the "which obscene is protected" door is that it gives the government (presumed to be correct in judgement by default) too much power. See Bush W admin's leaning on credit card processors to freeze out content they didn't like. If a Miller bargain must be struck, then "not allowing pornography to be exposed to minors (and no other limits for everyone else)" seems a better line. Then putting some safeguards in around what can and cannot be used as an age test in order to maximally preserve privacy (e.g. independent, non-government company, no identifiable information persisted, non-id verification options, etc) and what constitutes pornography (and what isn't). I'm a free-speech maximalist, but "porn for kids" is a tough hill to die on. Even if there are sound technical reasons why that should be allowed, there are too many social ones to make that the all-in bet in a democracy.
- websiteapi 10mo agowhat's the difference between porn and any arbitrary category here? even with porn isn't it just arbitrary that porn has been defined as "adult?" presumably Texas could just legislate that all apps are "adult" content, and then this would apply, no? given the same judge per the article did this block which ultimately was overturned by the Supreme Court, I doubt this will go differently
- websiteapi 10mo agoI think you might find it not so arbitrary that kids should watch 6 men “use” a young man or girl; or even 3 grannies using a young boy as a toy. Is it really arbitrary?
- LorenPechtel 10mo agoThe problem is you can't draw non-arbitrary lines. Consider an example I ran into a few years back. It was a web project, lots and lots of closeups of female genitals. Porn? No--educational, the purpose was to provide as wide as possible a sampling of what's normal so people don't get focused on the idealized representations in porn. One of the sports companies did something similar with breasts, it was accepted.
- mlrtime 10mo agoThis is already a solved problem. Medical schools teach anatomy, art museums display nude sculptures, sex education happens in schools, and National Geographic shows indigenous tribes without being classified as pornography. Courts have been distinguishing obscenity from protected speech for decades, and content platforms make these determinations millions of times per day. The existence of edge cases doesn't mean the distinction is impossible, it just means edge cases exist.
- notepad0x90 10mo agoI don't necessary like this law or precedent, but there are several major issues I have with the opposition. One is that it is not individuals that have their speech restricted, I have a very big problem with companies continuing to be treated as if they're people, they're not. Individuals have rights by default, companies have only obligations, unless explicitly stated by the government as a right of incorporated entities, ideally at least. There is also the issue of "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach", as in you can shout fire, but being able to reach a mass audience is reach. At least as far as content creators are concerned. Lastly, I don't know of the union has a chance of lasting if we can't allow states to enact ridiculous laws we don't like. Resistance to state law by the federal government should be rare and only in defense or actual harm being caused to citizens. My point isn't that freedom of speech is a minor right, but that the requirement to prove harm (since everyone agrees, speech isn't a right if there is harm) should not be strong on the part of states. The mere subjective opinion that the moral character of texans would be corrupted (as if! lol) by the content should be enough. why? because democracy, that's why. it's what texans keep voting for, states should have some level of self determination, otherwise they're just federal provinces. I don't think anyone serious is arguing that porn for children is fine. The problem is everyone else having to pay for it by verifying age. You may have a strong opinion on this, as do I, but if the democratic government of texas chooses to levy burdens on adults to protect children (at least in their view and belief), why should outsiders intervene or have an opinion on it? I would argue, that the burden of proof here to require the intervention of the federal government and legitimate invoking of federal rights should only be done if the plaintiff can prove harm was done to them, in this case by being required to verify their age. Or the content creators not being able to reach enough consumers. I think a lot of the core issues we have in the US are caused by a now entrenched culture, where states are required to have similar laws. Let's say you're a mormon or something and want to raise your kids in a strict state, if states can't age verify, what choice do mormons have left? You may not care for mormons, but this stuff adds up. You'll have a large voter base (I argue - that's what MAGA is in a way) that is consistently left out of options, because the terrible, ignorant, backwards, etc.. views they have can't be represented by any state. It all becomes a federal matter, eventually the only way to solve it would be conflict. I think enforcement of the civil right act/voting rights act set this precedent. It was the right thing to do, because it had to do with people's participation in voting, education and government, the very things which need to be protected so that states can claim they're representing the views of their population when passing disagreeable laws. But if the sentiment is that porn creators and consumers' rights in this case trumps states' rights, then we no longer have a system of government where different states can pursue different democratic experiments. The voters of federal/general election swing states determine every aspect of amercians' lives, their views are tyrannically forced upon everyone else.
- websiteapi 10mo ago“Because apparently tracking your morning run is a clear and present danger to minors.” Well yes, Strava is a danger to at risk adults even let alone children. In fact, it is a risk to US bases around the world.
- lostlogin 10mo ago> In fact, it is a risk to US bases around the world. If US army botany enthusiasts post a load of location data online on their favourite botany app, is that the app’s fault? I’d say it’s the soldier and US army who are at fault.
- websiteapi 10mo agoYes, if the botany app shares sensitive information like their exact location and possibly home/workplace then the app is to blame if it allows children and even adults to publish such information without explicit share-with-world opt in design.
- lostlogin 10mo agoAs a Strava user, it’s blindingly obvious that’s it’s sharing location data and easy to turn off. But if you’re doing some secret squirrel shit, are soldiers really allowed to use random location tracking apps from random companies?
- LorenPechtel 10mo agoNo, the tracking data is anonymous and not a threat to the user. The problem is that it exposed the locations it's users were going to. Anonymous, but a bunch of people going somewhere suggests either that it's interesting or that there's something there. (Doesn't always mean it's useful information. I was looking at the Strava global map, what in the world is this trail in my usual hiking area?? I eventually realized the reason it was bonkers was it was a ski run.)
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo agoStrava isn't the problem - educating the military personnel about not broadcasting their location is the problem. Even if someone isn't using Strava, they could just post a message on any social media platform giving away their exact position/coordinates.
- burnt-resistor 10mo agoThe Christian Taliban disagrees and will find another way to impose their values on them.
- mlrtime 10mo agoNot wanting 8-year-olds to access hardcore porn on their phones isn't "Christian Taliban," it's basic child protection that exists across cultures and political spectrums. If other states wants different standards, they can set them locally. That's how federalism works. Texas passing age verification laws for porn sites isn't imposing anything on other states.
- superkuh 10mo agoI guess you didn't read the article or understand the SINGLE MAIN POINT: this case isn't about PORN. IT'S EXPLICITLY NOT ABOUT PORN. You couldn't have made a more off-topic, entirely wrong comment if you had tried. Here is the first two paragraphs since you were unable to load it yourself. >Over the summer, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upended decades of traditional First Amendment standards to say that Texas could put in place an age verification law if that law was intended to keep kids away from porn. As we argued at the time, the ruling had all sorts of problems, but even leaving those aside, it was still pretty clearly limited solely to situations involving age gating adult content. Not news sites. Not fitness apps. Not therapy platforms. Porn. >Texas, predictably, heard “you can age gate porn” and decided that meant “you can age gate everything.” Because why respect constitutional distinctions when you can just pretend they don’t exist? If you want to keep thinking about porn then do it somewhere else. We're not discussing your obsession. This federal case, this article, this comment thread are about Texas trying to apply the age-gating for porn to non-porn things.