4 ms·

The problem with your proposal is that it's already the status quo. Various whitelists exist but service operators don't generally bother with these things. Wha

The problem with your proposal is that it's already the status quo. Various whitelists exist but service operators don't generally bother with these things. What you end up with is a largely unusable experience if you enable whitelist filtering. The core problem is the lack of buy in. Unfortunately that likely needs to be forced. I think it's not unreasonable to legally require people to make a claim about the nature of what they are serving up. They already need to be aware of the legal status of what they're doing anyway so it hardly seems as though making such a determination should pose a burden when you consider that it's an alternative to either requiring ID, requiring the client send age bracket information, or other heavy handed interventions. The choice here isn't "the status quo vs a header" but rather "some other age related regulation vs a header". An easy way to enforce this "voluntarily" (ie coerce) without sending government agents after every small time website operator would be to require that mainstream browsers and other client software (based on MAU or similar metrics) refuse to process content that does not send a classification header. Doesn't matter what the header says or what the status of the user account or parental controls or whatever else is, it has to send the header regardless or it will be blocked without exception. That would presumably trigger broad compliance with the relevant regulations.

iamnothere 5mo ago
Should books require an age rating? What about spoken words? What makes online speech different, from the perspective of the Constitution that limits the power of the state?
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  The difference is one of redressing a concrete dysfunction. Libraries or the local bookstore or whoever aren't trying to sneak into your home, onto your child's school bus, into your child's classroom, while pushing various extremist publications purely for their own profit (ie "engagement"). We do in fact have zoning laws - I can't inadvertently encounter a strip club in a quiet residential area. Meanwhile it's commonplace for children to carry a network terminal around with them with which one can readily access the equivalent of things far worse than that. What I've described does not restrict one's ability to speak freely. It is most similar to an impressum except it bears no identifying mark thus poses no hazard to anonymous speech.
  - iamnothere 5mo ago
    Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany. Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking. “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amendment, assuming you can get enough people to agree with your assessment.
    - fc417fc802 5mo ago
      You're just vaguely waving towards the first amendment. That's not a cohesive argument in and of itself. By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. After all, they both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech). > Impressums cannot be required in the US Yes but why can't they be required? My (quite possibly flawed) understanding was that SCOTUS previously established that publishing without attribution could not directly be outlawed, recognizing the ability to speak anonymously as an important aspect of political speech. What I have described does not run afoul of that. It neither restricts one's ability to speak nor provides for any form of attribution. > “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights Regardless of either your or my personal opinion SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights when a compelling need is presented and the remedy is sufficiently targeted. That said, I don't believe that what I described infringes on the first amendment to begin with so your point is doubly moot.
      - iamnothere 5mo ago
        > By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. Now you’re getting it. Throw them all out along with the idiots who passed the laws. > Yes but why can't they be required? The Court has interpreted compelled speech to be almost universally a violation of the First Amendment, outside of the courtroom. I tend to agree. “Shall make no law” is a strong statement. > SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights Prior courts. The present Court seems to be (rightly) rolling back both judicially-granted overexpansion of rights and exceptions to rights, although this is a slow process. We have to stop relying on the courts to grant new rights and/or exemptions to rights. Passing unconstitutional bills and hoping for a favorable interpretation is clearly not the intended process, yet it’s become increasingly common. We need to figure out how to pass amendments again or we are going to lose our republic. (It may already be too late due to an out of control executive and corrupt Congress, but that’s another matter.)
- paulddraper 5mo ago
  You are correct. Also, FWIW, 18 U.S.C. § 2257 applies to printed books as well as online content. But pure text literature (physical or online) isn't as regulated as visual media.

iamnothere 5mo ago

Should books require an age rating? What about spoken words? What makes online speech different, from the perspective of the Constitution that limits the power of the state?

fc417fc802 5mo ago
The difference is one of redressing a concrete dysfunction. Libraries or the local bookstore or whoever aren't trying to sneak into your home, onto your child's school bus, into your child's classroom, while pushing various extremist publications purely for their own profit (ie "engagement"). We do in fact have zoning laws - I can't inadvertently encounter a strip club in a quiet residential area. Meanwhile it's commonplace for children to carry a network terminal around with them with which one can readily access the equivalent of things far worse than that. What I've described does not restrict one's ability to speak freely. It is most similar to an impressum except it bears no identifying mark thus poses no hazard to anonymous speech.
- iamnothere 5mo ago
  Impressums cannot be required in the US, once again thanks to that pesky First Amendment. You may be mixing us up with Germany. Mandates on how speech must be structured are a violation of freedom of speech, Constitutionally speaking. “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights, as far as I am aware. The proper remedy for this kind of problem is an Amendment, assuming you can get enough people to agree with your assessment.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    You're just vaguely waving towards the first amendment. That's not a cohesive argument in and of itself. By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. After all, they both effectively regulate one half of the exchange necessary for meaningful communication (ie protected speech). > Impressums cannot be required in the US Yes but why can't they be required? My (quite possibly flawed) understanding was that SCOTUS previously established that publishing without attribution could not directly be outlawed, recognizing the ability to speak anonymously as an important aspect of political speech. What I have described does not run afoul of that. It neither restricts one's ability to speak nor provides for any form of attribution. > “Redressing a concrete dysfunction” does not appear in the Constitution as an exemption to guaranteed rights Regardless of either your or my personal opinion SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights when a compelling need is presented and the remedy is sufficiently targeted. That said, I don't believe that what I described infringes on the first amendment to begin with so your point is doubly moot.
    - iamnothere 5mo ago
      > By your own logic would online ID laws not also be a constitutional violation? Ditto for age bracketing laws such as the one under discussion here. Now you’re getting it. Throw them all out along with the idiots who passed the laws. > Yes but why can't they be required? The Court has interpreted compelled speech to be almost universally a violation of the First Amendment, outside of the courtroom. I tend to agree. “Shall make no law” is a strong statement. > SCOTUS routinely makes exceptions to constitutional rights Prior courts. The present Court seems to be (rightly) rolling back both judicially-granted overexpansion of rights and exceptions to rights, although this is a slow process. We have to stop relying on the courts to grant new rights and/or exemptions to rights. Passing unconstitutional bills and hoping for a favorable interpretation is clearly not the intended process, yet it’s become increasingly common. We need to figure out how to pass amendments again or we are going to lose our republic. (It may already be too late due to an out of control executive and corrupt Congress, but that’s another matter.)
paulddraper 5mo ago
You are correct. Also, FWIW, 18 U.S.C. § 2257 applies to printed books as well as online content. But pure text literature (physical or online) isn't as regulated as visual media.