Comment by 0x_rs
10 days ago
The war on the free internet is accelerating. Without real push-back to these dystopian laws and consequences for the people proposing and lobbying for them, you'll miss what will ultimately end up being a temporary anomaly of mostly unrestrained free flow of information. It's not an hypothetical scenario or something that will develop down the line, it's happening today, worldwide.
I heard from a friend last night that they were unable to see posts on X about current protests in their country because those were considered "adult" content which can now only be viewed after submitting to an ID check. Not porn, video of a protest.
You're 100% right that it's happening today.
It’s really important to remember in this context that “the purpose of a system is what it does.”
Do not think for a moment that ID verification primarily protects children and only incidentally enables authoritarian restrictions on speech. Do not think for a second that verification initiatives are designed without anticipating this outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
The phrase does not mean that you can pick any single effect of a system and claim that is its purpose, as your linked article does in its examples. (Ironically, a form of reducto as absurdum.) It is a heuristic, a pattern of thought to attempt to overcome the bias towards judging systems based on the intentions behind them instead of the outcomes they produce. The point is that when you choose a course of action, you are implicitly choosing its negative effects as well, and the choice should be judged on all its effects. You are making a cost / benefit analysis, and if that is not explicit, it can easily be wrong.
That's a typical "reductio absurdum"
The purpose of a system is not what it does.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...
2 replies →
So the purpose of a hospital is to kill people?
2 replies →
> "the purpose of a system is what it does"
So then the purpose of the internet was to share cat pics? This quote is so wrong in every way.
> Do not think for a moment
I will decide what I think thank you. It's very ironic when arguments against "censorship" go this way.
Sadly the old guard of free speech and privacy activists on the internet has long gone, drowned by a sea of unprincipled populist reactionaries - if their team decided that the content is "problematic", then they are entirely justified in censoring and punishing the speakers for daring to speak it, and entirely justified in protecting everybody else from having to suffer the horror of reading/seeing/hearing it, and it matters not whether the mechanisms are legal or ethical because the ends justify the means.
>the old guard of free speech and privacy activists on the internet has long gone, drowned by a sea of unprincipled populist reactionaries
which is an unnecessary ideological divide if your concern is free speech and privacy; too bad the old guard of activists chose sides and alienated additional support for their cause.
12 replies →
> Not porn, video of a protest
Not commenting on ID checks but depending on the protest, some images can be violent and definitely "adult".
I never understood why we go out of our way to "protect" children against seeing naked people, but real people in a pool of blood, nah, no problem. I think that people bloodily fighting each other for causes that I have a hard time understanding even as an adult may not be what we want children to be exposed to without control. Images of violence create a visceral reaction and I don't think it is how we should approach political problems, in the same way that porn may not be the best approach to sex, the same argument for why we don't let children access porn applies to political violence too.
The point I wanted to make is that whatever your opinion is on ID checks to access to adult content, "adult" doesn't and shouldn't just mean "porn".
Well that's kind of exactly my point, really.
Ostensibly these laws are to protect kids from porn, but that isn't really the case. They instantly expand to everything else "adult", and it's very easy to argue that talking about politics, or discussing evidence of war crimes or genocide, or apparently showing a real and current protest, are "adult" conversations.
And with laws like this, people, adults, everyone, lose the ability to participate in those conversations without doxxing themselves. Some of these things are difficult to discuss when you fear retribution.
It's not about the porn. It was never actually about the porn. The porn is just the difficult-to-defend-without-looking-like-a-pervert smokescreen. It's designed to curtail the free flow of information and expression in far more areas. The people behind these laws are liars.
We are approaching a time when most of that free flowing information is LLM generated propaganda and advertising. The average person can no longer go on the internet and trust any of the things they see or read, so what's the value of such information? I would prefer the free internet of the 90s and 00s, but we're losing it even without these laws.
> We are approaching a time when most of that free flowing information is LLM generated propaganda and advertising. The average person can no longer go on the internet and trust the things they see or read
The average person could never do that; critical evaluation was always needed (and it was needed for the material people encountered before the internet, too.) The only thing that is a change from the status quo ante in the first sentence is “LLM generated”.
Maybe, but it's not possible to critically evaluate everything you see and read. For sure most people don't, and probably no one does all the time. So if before 10% of information was lies and manipulation, most of the information was still good, or at least something that a real person thought was good. Now, or soon, anything you read or watch has a 99% chance of being generated by someone who wants to manipulate you, because those who want to manipulate have something to gain from it, and are willing to spend more money to do it than those who want to share the truth.
Actually I think with LLM, the average person is more likely to be critical of anything they see now than ever before, as they know that it could be AI generated. In my non IT circle, now even genuine content is being doubted as being AI generated.
1 reply →
There's still messaging between groups of people who already know each other and can verify each others' online identities offline.
It's in the UK, EU and soon to the US.
The west is going to be less and less free.
I'm sorry I feel the chill writing this, but I hope the hackers keep the flame alive.
Hackers: keep giving the finger to regulators when they overreach. They don't get to make the future.
This reliance on hackers and other antisocial snowflakes in FOSS world is one of the reason we are where we are.
Political problems cannot be solved through technology or yet another forked FOSS project. They require political power, numbers and threat of violence to those in charge.
It's not a war.
The population (especially the youth) is anesthetized by social media, shorts, fear-inducing news, economic hopelessness, climate extremes..
In the meantime, everything is getting integrated - banks, tax systems, tech platforms. Now this age verification.. And of course, AI is being implemented everywhere so that no one can evade the big brother.
As it stands now, this Internet is no longer salvageable imo.
> Without real push-back to these dystopian laws and consequences for the people proposing and lobbying for them
If anything, I’m seeing more calls for internet regulation on HN and other tech places than in the past.
Every time something is shared about topics like kids spending too much time on phones or LLMs producing incorrect output, the comments attract a lot of demands for government regulation as the solution. Regulation is viewed as the way to push back on technological and social problems.
The closer regulations come to reality, the less popular they are. Regulation seems most attractive in the abstract, before people have to consider the unintended consequences.
The most common example I can think of is age verification: Every thread about smartphone addiction come with calls for strict age-based regulation all over the place.
Yet the calls for strict age-based internet regulation generally fail to realize that you can’t only do age verifications on kids and you can’t do it anonymously. The only way to do age verification is to verify everyone, and the only way to verify that the age verification matches the user is to remove the possibility of anonymity.
The calls for regulation always imagine it happening to other people and other companies. Few people demanding internet age verification for things like social media seem to realize that it would also apply to sites like HN. Nobody likes the idea of having to prove your identity for an age check to sign up for HN, they just want to imagine Facebook users going through that trouble because they don’t use Facebook and therefore it’s not a problem.
Engineers want some kind of regulation because they feel like computer systems, which they nominally control, are out of control, because of the business people's demands. They want the right to say no without having to have the consequences of saying no. But then when regulations come in, they're not about regulating business, they're about regulated interactions between people and business. And whereas the idealist sees a regulation as a chance to change things for the better, a regulator sees a regulation as a chance to preserve things as they were just before they became bad. (It takes a politician, not a regulator, to change things.)
They always start with "think of the children", but that's just the opening salvo. The wild west days of the internet are definitely behind us. We'll be lucky if we still have private personal computing in the future, or any semblance of free speech.
If we're to regain any ground here we need to adjust the messaging wrt terms like "wild west" - that's precisely the kind of terminology that scares the average voter into thinking the government needs to do something about this whole internet thing. We need to use patriotic and inspiring language, like "free" as in "free speech for the internet," or "safe and private" etc
[dead]
There wont be any consequences if you expect them to legislate against themselves, or handcuff themselves and throw themselves into a cage.
Let's stop beating around the bush. We all know this doesn't make any sense.
I'm not sure this old horror story still works. The things to be afraid of have changed too much and at a far larger scale than people then could comprehend.
The "temporary anomaly" is one of perception. It was individuals talking to individuals. In terms of volume the world has never had this much free flow of information, and its never been easier to transmit encrypted data within a group.
At the same time the problem with letting the internet be without government means it pushes digital crack to all children, and an oligarchy of (natural) monopolies tightly control certain powers through systems like "sign in with Google".
The options for companies to instead use a government backed digital identity seems like an obvious step forward if designed carefully enough.
That requires the right mindfullness of people's rights, eg the right story. I just don't think the war on the free-internet narrative from 30 years ago is up for it.
But the "digital crack" isn't what the government wants to restrict from children.
They want to stop children from accessing porn, which really isn't all that bad. Certainly it's not nearly as bad as wasting hours on perfectly legal social media and streaming sites
It's not accelerating, it's over. We lost.
We didn't quite yet. We're still here, pretty anonymous, I'm sure your real name is not deadbabe :) IRC still exists where you can just pick a nickname from thin air. And most of these things will stay, underground. It's the commercial mainstream that will bow to this, sadly.
Unfortunately, the expert in debugging Arduino electrical errors, or in numpy, or in evaluating what the burn pattern on your spark plugs means, or in identifying that strange object in your telescope, won't be on IRC. He'll be on Reddit, where you'll need a government-provided ID _and sanctioned device_ to participate. Or on Facebook, where you'll need a government-provided ID _and sanctioned device_ to participate. Or on whatever large, popular platform replaces them, where you'll need a government-provided ID _and sanctioned device_ to participate.
But rest assured, so long as you want to discuss privacy and nostalgia of the pre-invasionary internet, you'll find a knowledgeable expert on IRC.
6 replies →
In Germany, before I can send an anonymous message on HN, I have to send a picture of my passport to some government agency and have a video call with them, so that my phone is allowed to attach to the internet.
8 replies →
I’ve literally never used IRC, wouldn’t know where to begin.
[dead]