[HN Gopher] The EARN IT act will ban LGBT-related content and di...
___________________________________________________________________
The EARN IT act will ban LGBT-related content and discussions on
the internet
Author : notRobot
Score : 31 points
Date : 2022-02-04 20:26 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fullhalalalchemist.tumblr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (fullhalalalchemist.tumblr.com)
| wtfpost wrote:
| As with other posters here, I'm in full favor of this move. The
| internet has been turned into a shitshow.
| E2EEd wrote:
| Apple's on-device scanning experiment failed miserably. It was
| (at least, co-opted as) a litmus test for working around the
| post-Snowden E2EE-at-scale status quo in which we find ourselves.
|
| I don't have enough background to understand the implications of
| EARN IT for the LGBT community. What is occuring, though, is a
| lack of common ground between libertarians and law enforcement:
|
| If the tech idealists and law enforcement types fail to find
| common ground to develop robust compromises, EARN IT, which
| _will_ be implemented sub-optimally out of convenience, will have
| the negative consequences noted by the techno-libertarian crowd.
|
| However, a sound compromise does exist. It's just that nobody is
| talking about it, because most folks have strong opinions at one
| end or the other. The "edge", as it may be, is slated to
| introduce tens of trillions in new tech value in the coming
| decades -- all in support of hyperscale networking. It's a chance
| to find robust solutions that satisfy most parties, but not if
| the libertarians maintain the hard-line. It's up to the tech
| community to develop responsible encryption recovery techniques,
| because clearly law enforcement and congress are too provincial
| to understand what's at stake. Yet, by maintaining the hard line,
| congress will get their way, and we'll be less safe as a result.
|
| Responsible encryption recovery is possible if you throw out the
| existing mechanisms of centralization along with "trust us, we're
| the NSA" mentality. Build your techniques around ideas that
| reject centralization, and reject mathematically unauditable
| recovery schemes. Reject techniques that exclude civil
| libertarians from the systems of checks and balances needed.
|
| I say this with urgency because finding common ground is the only
| way we'll achieve a more responsible system of oversight for
| policing our private comms.
| notananthem wrote:
| Topics like this always remind me the actual agenda of tech/fin
| folks- social conservatism
| supernintendo wrote:
| Hacker News really is hostile to the LGBTQ community. I've
| tried to look past it but seeing people here equate being gay
| to a mental disorder is all the indication I needed to know
| that I'm not welcome here.
|
| Whatever. Y'all can have it.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| > Hacker News really is hostile to the LGBTQ community.
|
| I never noticed that. Keep in mind that HN is not a uniform
| mass, it's full of people with wildy different opinions. Yes,
| there are probably some homophobic comments, but they are a
| tiny minority.
|
| > seeing people here equate being gay to a mental disorder
|
| I would expect such a comment to get downvoted into oblivion
| and/or called out by other users.
| iamdamian wrote:
| That hasn't been my experience at all over 10+ years.
| krapp wrote:
| You can literally just scroll down and see it.
| throwawayrev3 wrote:
| It's true. There are many supportive people too. I think the
| problem is that the 'mental disorder' guys are not banned. So
| they keep on commenting. Flagging doesn't work that well,
| because one already read the comment.
| MathCodeLove wrote:
| What kind of ridiculously sensationalized title (and blog post)
| is this? The act is taking steeper measures again child
| pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm
| the LGBT community?
| thebradbain wrote:
| It takes almost no measures against child pornography
| specifically while essentially ending encryption (or moving
| encryption to a "first prove you're not using it for harm"
| approach) and allowing an unelected commission to essentially
| define what is and what is not considered inappropriate for the
| internet to view
|
| The bill is pushed by anti-lgbtq/religious groups under the
| guise of protecting children, similar to the failed California
| ballot measure pushed by religious groups in 2016 to require
| all porn viewed in California to feature the usage of condoms
| under the guise of promoting safe sexual practices (and allow
| individuals who witnessed such a video to personally sue the
| content provider), yet was actually a thinly veiled attempt to
| shut down the entire porn industry in California, where it was
| essentially invented.
|
| Both of these cases should and likely would be thrown out by
| the Supreme Court as a direct threat against the first
| amendment, but who knows anymore.
| noughtme wrote:
| IANAL, so can someone please explain this section:
|
| "(7) CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS DO NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY.
| --Notwithstanding paragraph (6), a provider of an interactive
| computer service shall not be deemed to be in violation of
| section 2252 or 2252A of title 18, United States Code, for
| the purposes of subparagraph (A) of such paragraph (6), and
| shall not otherwise be subject to any charge in a criminal
| prosecution under State law under subparagraph (B) of such
| paragraph (6), or any claim in a civil action under State law
| under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph (6), because the
| provider--
|
| "(A) utilizes full end-to-end encrypted messaging services,
| device encryption, or other encryption services;
|
| "(B) does not possess the information necessary to decrypt a
| communication; or
|
| "(C) fails to take an action that would otherwise undermine
| the ability of the provider to offer full end-to-end
| encrypted messaging services, device encryption, or other
| encryption services.".
| AnEro wrote:
| >The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography.
| Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT
| community?
|
| Sensationalized yes 100%, a bill that defines what is safe for
| children to see and not see content wise is absolutely a cause
| for concern as it enters a very partisan political chamber.
|
| Sadly just cause a bill is aimed to do good does not mean the
| fine print doesn't screw over vast populations or has anything
| to do with how its advertised at the begining. Look at what the
| policies that made Pizza a 'vegetable', they were attached to
| policies to help children's health.
| haswell wrote:
| Based on this response, I assume you are also comfortable with
| Apple's on-device scanning proposal because it, too was taking
| aim at CSAM?
|
| I recommend you take some time to understand why privacy
| advocates are extremely concerned about this bill [0].
|
| As always, these privacy destroying measures are introduced in
| the name of protecting children or anti terrorism. What
| proponents of these bills will never admit is that they're
| draconian surveillance bills delivered as a Trojan horse in the
| name of "safety".
|
| - [0] https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-act-to-save-
| our-...
| noughtme wrote:
| I'm all for tumblr not breaking the back button.
| philtar wrote:
| This sounds like a great idea. It seems like the internet I know
| has transformed into a tool for people to publicly display their
| mental health problems.
|
| Also I'm pro almost anything that will make porn harder to get.
|
| But I can't imagine where they'll draw the line on this it's
| gonna be really fuzzy.
| brysonreece wrote:
| Are you seriously implying that being LGBT is a mental health
| issue?
|
| I'm opposed to the restriction of content online that doesn't
| inherently infringe on someone else's liberties or body,
| personal opinions be damned. It's asinine to believe that an
| entire Internet worth of people should have their accessibility
| to content limited because "I don't like this."
| wtfpost wrote:
| fortyseven wrote:
| I bet you're fun at parties.
| krapp wrote:
| The text of the bill itself[0]
|
| [0]https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-
| bill/339...
| notRobot wrote:
| See also:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/sjsih3/the_earn_it_ac...
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| This reddit link had a petition of a pro pedophilia group
| (prostasia foundation) against it. I don't think it does any
| favours for people who agree dangerous information online needs
| to be dealt with.
| [deleted]
| notananthem wrote:
| Did you misread "mozilla" as "protasia"
| genericone wrote:
| From the reddit post: *UPDATE 3: The Prostasia Foundation
| is likely pro-map, so I deleted the link. I am dearly sorry
| to those I made sign that petition. The link is also not
| working for some people, so I replaced it with the Mozilla
| one.
| throwawayvibes wrote:
| I'm all for this. These topics generate nothing but vitriol and
| polarisation.
| AnEro wrote:
| Today in terrifying news people like this exist in democracies
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-04 23:02 UTC)