[t4t]

The biggest piece of feedback I think I have gotten from posting here is that the nsfw content is a bit shocking which I get. Sorry about that.

My guess is that if you just scrolled twitter or whatever by new exclusively unfiltered you wouldn’t have that different an experience.

On the one hand I do think there is something interesting about the rawness of this network but also some sort of smart nsfw filtering is clearly needed, and I've been in the bubble of making this long enough to have become a bit desensitized.

I will get that shipped within the week!

[mmooss]

Several US states now require age verification for adult content (I don't know how that is defined). A case challenging such laws is being considered by the US Supreme Court, but most experts believe the court will allow the age verification.

That may mean users identifying themselves, which seems dangerous. (It should not at all be dangerous, but it is.) All you need is some phobic government official to sue or investigate you, for any reason they can come up with, and demand all your records as part of their lawsuit/investigation.

Perhaps there's a way to do age verification while minimizing privacy risks? For example, verify their age, give them their credentials, then delete the PII? I don't know if that would suffice if your age verification practices were challenged.

(Talk to an expert.)

[matthewdgreen]

You can use cryptography to perform parts of verification. Specifically, you can use anonymous credentials to prove to a specific website that you have a credential. But that credential must then be issued by some authority that actually examines your physical "proof of age" (driver's license etc.) and issues it to your device.

The problem is that, at least at the moment, simply obtaining a credential like this has a huge chilling effect. You need to mail stuff into some crummy company chosen by the government, which then processes it and takes time. That company might be breached, which identifies you as "a person who is specifically interested in accessing adult content." Many of these problems can theoretically be fixed, but fixing them would have to be the goal of the authorities -- and I suspect it is not.

[mmooss]

> "a person who is specifically interested in accessing adult content."

Or at more risk, a person interested in trans content.

[matthewdgreen]

And in the very near future, perhaps someone who is interested in accessing non-adult content that simply covers topics that are considered "unwholesome."

[KronisLV]

> Perhaps there's a way to do age verification while minimizing privacy risks? For example, verify their age, give them their credentials, then delete the PII?

I wonder why trusted third parties haven't sprung up around this very concept to the degree of OIDC (it's almost everywhere), you could have companies that allow uniquely identifying people, without having to manage or even get their PII directly.

Service wants to check age or whether user is banned --> they are redirected to some-identity-platform.com where they can deal with any ID documents and other PII --> some-identity-platform.com gives back a token and a UUID, so all the service really needs is a JSON object with the UUID and whether user is of age (if that was in scope).

That service can also let the user granularly choose what information to return: just the UUID, whether they're of age, or specific data like where they're located, actual PII if needed (e.g. auth with govt. site) etc., the UUIDs could also be service specific, so they cannot be cross referenced across different sites in case of leaks.

Things a bit like that exist, for example here's a few random ones:

  https://www.jumio.com/
  https://aws.amazon.com/rekognition/identity-verification/
  https://www.veriff.com/
  https://www.yoti.com/
  https://ondato.com/

It does feel like the privacy problem could be solved in exactly these services, without passing too much information to the service itself. Because currently there are crazy amounts of hate and content out there that I might not want from a certain person on a site I operate, so I could just ban 914582c9-289a-4f8c-9e1c-f4193066e210 and the same person (at least with the same legal identity) could never get another account on my platform. I wouldn't even know that it's John Doe from country X and region Y that's uploading problematic content. Vice versa, I might just sell stuff to 5b9ee810-605b-40ce-9ead-85102e92df74 without ever risking compromising their identity.

[numpad0]

Because verification requirements are merely indirect means to suppress contents. It really doesn't matter if the actor is 14 or 40 and it's never about making sure it's the latter.

[almatabata]

> the UUIDs could also be service specific, so they cannot be cross referenced across different sites in case of leaks.

Assuming services play nice. What if they start sharing UUIDs amongst each other, for example for advertising purposes?

Worse what is stopping companies from creating both service and verifier? Nothing, as Amazon already has both. I do not trust them not to abuse this.

And even if in theory all companies do the respect my privacy. I am one government away, from seeing a law passed, that makes it mandatory to report all UUIDs to the government. The potential for tracking is off the charts.

Right now it takes forever to trace everything. You can realistically only do it for a select targets. If you implement this UUID system, suddenly it becomes much easier to trace everyone's actions.

[freehorse]

I am not an expert either, but I have read that it requires at least 33% of content being "adult". Not sure how much content this page have, and OP should get in contact with an expert (maybe a trans lawyer or sth would be more willing to help such a project?) but i assume that the most important would be to ensure that NSFW content is below 1/3, like twitter (twitter has a huge lot of porn but even more non-porn content)

[ajb]

If you don't do age verification then your need to comply with COPPA etc as you have to assume underage users.

My previous employer used twohat to monitor for content dangerous to underage users, but I don't know if they were any good as it's not my area. It looks like they got bought by Microsoft as twohat.com redirects to a Microsoft product page now

[master-lincoln]

Age verification could be possible without giving out PII e.g. via Zero Knowledge proofs. This would of course need a central authority that is trusted to give out per person digital IDs. Usually that would be the government.

[hn_throwaway_99]

All the porn companies have handled this by simply blocking the sites in the states in question, just forcing people to use VPNs. If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII.

The whole thing is just moralistic BS anyway. I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults.

[itake]

> just forcing people to use VPNs

Does this really even work? The law isn't "if the user's ip address appears to be from this state, then you must require id".

Properly enforcing georestrictions like this costs money and destroys businesses, but that is kinda the point.

[azernik]

It provides plausible deniability. "We did our best, judge"

[moate]

It's not even plausible deniability, it's literally "how are we supposed to know what location people are in other than ISP?" That's the de facto determinate of location online. The government hasn't taken the position that a bar checking driver's licenses to confirm someone's age provides "plausible deniability", but rather that they're doing their part to comply with the law, even if some users are going to use fake IDs to cheat the system.

[itake]

1/ block data center connections / require users to connect via a residential IP, not cell phone.

2/ request GPS location from the device.

3/ request WiFi location from the device.

4/ require billing address to be out of state. (States collect sales tax based on billing address, not where the service or product is bought. So I think this is fair.)

[dspillett]

No, but they have deniability. “We checked, and they weren't in your state as far as we can tall”.

Slightly aside, if you filter like this for any reason it is safer to check that the request is NOT coming from some other location – that way your main failure mode is accidentally screening someone in a state you don't need to, not accidentally letting someone in that you could face legal action for, though this is a harder check to make.

The blocked people that use VPNs may well appear to be coming from a non-US location too which probably makes the denial slightly safer.

[svnt]

I’m sorry but business success aside, how else do you propose to do it? Require them to go outside and take a panoramic video including their face that somehow also captures third-party information about the date and time and then feed it into geoguessr?

[itake]

Couple thoughts:

1/ if the company can’t meet the regulations, it can’t exist.

2/ if there is wiggle room of “as long as you tried your best, then it’s ok”, then requesting gps location, nearby wifi nodes, and banning traffic from data centers, then that would be better.

[harimau777]

I think the problem is that laws that are trying to force morality on people.

[ryandrake]

The general problem is that web site X doesn't know if user Y lives in state Z. And most of the realistic ways to allow them to know this are huge PII disasters waiting to happen. This has nothing to do with morality. If states wanted to ban HN, it would be just as ridiculous. Using IP address is about as pointless as using your mobile phone's area code.

[Digory]

All laws force morality on people.

[chimeracoder]

> If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII.

Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws) has been proposing them. Their goal is to outlaw pornography (and other "immoral" content) on the internet by making it so difficult to access or provide legally that nobody will bother.

> I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults.

You're making the mistake of assuming their goal is to prevent kids from being able to access pornography. It is not. Their goal is to make it so financially impractical to run any service that publishes (or allows people to publish) pornography, LGBTQ content, or anything that they deem "immoral" that nobody even tries. And it's working: many services which used to allow that content before 2017 no longer do, and it is much, much more expensive (and difficult) for the remaining folks to find platforms or hosting providers to continue to do so.

[caminante]

I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect.

> These bills didn’t originate from some evangelical PAC or conservative think tank. Their actual origin was, ironically, The Howard Stern Show. [0]

While it seems like everyone has overwhelmingly sided against free speech advocates (ACLU) and porn sites, there are some interesting points about access/addiction. I'm less impressed if it's purely evangelical driven (at least now), but I'm sympathetic to arguments about access for minors (or their ability to post under-age content). I don't have the answer.

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/08/age-law-on...

[chimeracoder]

> I was curious about the origin. It may not be what you expect.

As someone who's been following this for over a decade, I can assure you it is, in fact, what I expect.

That article is absolute nonsense, which you can tell by the fact that it claims the clock starts in 2021, when these bills have actually been introduced multiple times before then.

Furthermore, the article contradicts its own narrative, first claiming that a Howard Stern spot "started" it, then admitting two paragraphs later that the legislator was inspired by that radio show to contact... an anti-porn lobbyist that she had already known about for years. That's a really... interesting definition of "origin" that they're using.

[caminante]

Sure, but LA was the first to pass age verification for adult sites (and it wasn't until 2022-23). I don't know what the line is between that and other age verification (13+) or blanket anti-porn bills you're referring to. [0]

I don't follow your point about contradiction.

How is contacting a single-issue ally (who's on the opposite end of the political spectrum at that -- and not a "GOP Think Tank" or "evangelical") changing the origin? The person she reached out to is a pro-abortion, radical feminist. That is strengthening the article's key conclusion by a lot. It's a surprising turn for an origin story.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_verification_system#United...

[Aromasin]

This seems a little baffling to me because these evangelical groups are uniquely American. There would still exist a huge pornography industry globally, particularly within the EU, that would serve the US even if these groups achieved every goal. It's deluded to think it could be stopped.

[brimwats]

No they're not; their roots are in the YMCA and the British society for the suppression of vice and earlier societies dating back to the 1700s. They originated when the church courts were shut down and are a feature of British evangelicalism that Americans turbocharged.

[chimeracoder]

> This seems a little baffling to me because these evangelical groups are uniquely American.

I'm referring to one of several groups that is behind a specific campaign in the US. That doesn't mean that there aren't other efforts to curtail this in other countries or globally.

As mentioned elsewhere, there's a law that's about to go into effect in the UK which is actually way broader and draconian than any that has been passed anywhere in the US. There are more in other countries too.

> There would still exist a huge pornography industry globally, particularly within the EU, that would serve the US even if these groups achieved every goal.

And yet, when Tumblr and Imgur and Reddit[0] banned pornography, no EU-based competitor emerged to take their place.

[0] Reddit's ban wasn't a total ban, but it was enough to effectively shut down many groups (which was the goal).

[numpad0]

EU guys are the same. Organizations like German state police are doing "crackdowns" of Internet contents in total disregard of jurisdiction. Targeting criteria is neither consumers nor producers but specific subjective quality of content itself: they never care who makes it or at what cost, but that it exists.

[influx]

Does the EU allow sales of pornography to minors?

[azeirah]

VPNs? Or children?

[southernplaces7]

>Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws)

Sure, they're major culprits but let's not let the left get off the hook entirely on promoting moralizing censorship of porn too. There are segments of it, especially those in certain feminist camps that hate pornography with a victorian near-evangelical level of scorn and they have a loud voice of their own under different flags and reasoning.

[mmooss]

Are there many and do they have any influence? I haven't heard anything from such groups. Have they gotten any laws passed, like the age verification laws the other groups have succeeded in passing in several states?

[Digory]

“ We believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone," Steve Jobs declared in an email to a customer. "Folks who want porn can buy an Android."

[TheOtherHobbes]

There are, but they're disorganised and poorly funded, and opposed by other feminists. (It's practically a law - for almost every feminist moral POV there is an equal and opposite feminist moral POV.)

Meanwhile the organised and well-funded evangelicals and right-wingers ignore the constant stream of SA and CP convictions among youth pastors and other supposed moral authorities.

The stats don't necessarily prove that religious states consume more porn, but porn is an existential problem for evangelicals in a way that it isn't for most progressives.

[Dalewyn]

Pedantic, but the word you're looking for is proxy, not VPN.

A Virtual Private Network is a private network such as a Local Area Network created virtually on a Wide Area Network such as the internet. Tailscale, SoftEther, or Hamachi for the old boys are examples of VPN implementations.

A proxy is a server that accepts and forwards traffic from clients through it, lending its IP address to clients as the traffic origin if desired.

A proxy can exist in a private network, but it is not a requirement.

[hn_throwaway_99]

No, the word I was looking for was VPN, not proxy. We weren't having a technical discussion about protocols or what not, I was talking about the services people use to bypass state-level porn blocks, and for better or worse, those things are called VPNs. As someone who does understand the technical background, I don't really like it either, but tough shit, language changes and has different meanings in different contexts.

Just google "VPN" or "How do I access Pornhub in Alabama?" All of the results refer to "VPNs" as I was using the term.

[technion]

I think this ship has sailed. Services like nord or mullad are described as VPN products yet they are the products people are buying to route traffic into pornhub.

[Dalewyn]

Seeing as Hacker News is ostensibly composed largely of people in-the-know, we could certainly use appropriate terminology unlike the commons.

[fenomas]

Usages exist inside contexts, and the context of the post you replied to was unambiguous. Changing it like s/VPNs/services advertised as VPNs/ would not clarify anything to anyone, and changing it like s/VPNs/proxies/ would be less clear (since the author was likely referring to commercial services, not servers in a network).

[Avicebron]

A lot of people live exclusively on layer 7, which is fine.

[numpad0]

"VPN" services do in fact use VPN, they're not HTTP based. It is technically appropriate to call them as such, as awkward as it is.

[0xcde4c3db]

Yeah; it's not strictly accurate, but in a similar sense that it's not strictly accurate to call the typical copper Ethernet connector "RJ45", to say that a UDP "connection" occurred, or to say that a modem connects to a "DB-9" serial port.

I suspect the root of the problem is that over time, "proxy" has become strongly associated with application-layer protocols like HTTP, and after that shift it wasn't obvious what to use for something lower-level that encompassed a wider range of protocols/endpoints/conversations. In principle, "tunnel" would probably have been better (and a legible metaphor to boot), but that's just not how things shook out in practice.

[zajio1am]

I would disagree.

First, system that forwards traffic behind its own IP address is called proxy if it works on application level, and NAT if it works on IP level. So we have socks proxy, but home router with NAT.

Second, VPN is just a fancy name for an overlay network over WAN. Overlay network is overlay network even if it only contains two nodes - your host and a remote router providing internet access.

I do not have direct experience with these VPN services, but i would guess they work on IP level and not on application level. So they are just ISPs providing service through overlay network (VPN) instead of access network or physical network.

[rUsHeYaFuBu]

Curious, does a proxy also tend to encrypt the data streamed between it and the end user like a VPN service would?

That is, does the ISP have access to the information that's being accessed via the proxy?

It was my understanding that proxies tending to mask where a request came from but does nothing significant with the data between it and the requester.

[Dalewyn]

>does a proxy also tend to encrypt the data streamed between it and the end user like a VPN service would?

It could, but it's not a hard requirement. A proxy server is just like any other server, encrypting the data en route is as desired.

A VPN encrypts data as a part of securing tunnels, but it's not a hard requirement there either. As long as two computers can communicate over private IP address ranges on a WAN, it's a VPN. The Private in VPN indicates the scope of the network, not whether any data within is immediately accessible.

See also: "Private" and "Public" IP address ranges.

>does the ISP have access to the information that's being accessed via the proxy?

The ISP providing internet to the proxy server will know what the proxy server requests and receives.

>It was my understanding that proxies tending to mask where a request came from but does nothing significant with the data between it and the requester.

Correct. Again, whether the data a proxy server receives and forwards was encrypted is tangential to the task of forwarding data.

[mhitza]

Depends on the proxy. If you have an SSH server you can open a local socks5 proxy, that when configured in your browser sends all the traffic through your server. Since its a proxy over SSH it's all encrypted till your server, then whatever protocol the website uses.

VPNs are better (as in more ergonomic) in practice, since large sites tend to block access from known hosting providers (looking at YouTube not rendering video when accessed from a Hetzner server).

[ETH_start]

It's 100% bullshit. The parents themselves are responsible for letting their children browse the internet unsupervised.

The culture of over-reaction to danger that has taken over the political domain is creating a nanny state where it's impossible to avoid crosssing red lines and doing something wrong. It's paralyzing society by instilling inaction as the only safe path.

[itake]

> The parents themselves are responsible

Parents give their kids access to guns and we all know how that ends. If we can't hold parents accountable for their children's violence, I seriously doubt we can do anything about parents failing to parent their kids on this topic.

What are we going to do? throw the single mom with 2 jobs and 5 kids in jail because she didn't pay $20/mo for parental controls on her kids devices?

[ETH_start]

>throw the single mom with 2 jobs and 5 kids in jail because she didn't pay $20/mo for parental controls on her kids devices?

If she wants to have children out of wedlock or with a man who are not financially capable of being a provider, then she and her children should bear the consequences of that, not everyone else who know has to have government take over the internet and mandates identity disclosures for perusing adult content.

[itake]

Society pays the consequences either directly from government or the impact the kids have on everyone else that has to live with adults that discovered porn as a kid before they could understand it.

Kids that discovered porn at an early age will not understand how to process it properly and this will impact their relationships in the future. It is their future partners that suffer along with the kids and family.

[robertlagrant]

> The parents themselves are responsible for letting their children browse the internet unsupervised.

Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

> The culture of over-reaction to danger

Which is it? Is it that parents haven't protected their children enough, or that children don't need protection from watching pornography?

[ETH_start]

>Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

You have to not let your child near any older child with a non-child-safe phone. This is the parents' responsibility.

[monkeyfun]

>Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Also, on your second point, you seem to be almost strawmanning -- I see no claim from the person you're replying to that they think kids need more protection.

They're stating that parents are actively giving their kids devices, and have a lot of tools to restrict usage of those devices. Whether they literally limit physical access, oversee use, or install filtering software, there's a lot that can be done to restrict access in an authoritarian manner to those kids, and exclusively within the household without having to affect and restrict the overwhelming majority of society: grown adults.

(I also personally believe education is more important than any sort of restriction, and am always against censorship or surveillance policies in general. I definitely agree with them on but I'm trying to mostly restrict my post to what that person almost definitely had in mind, rather than soapboxing my own views).

[Izkata]

> > Unless you never let your child near any slightly older child with a phone, you as a parent cannot individually control this.

> ...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Pre-internet, there was a fairly common trope of a kid discovering a dirty magazine, often hidden in the home by an older sibling, and showing it to their friends. Nothing actually happening, they were just sharing the images. GP seemed to just be suggesting that updated for the internet age.

[robertlagrant]

> ...are you implying kids are having group jerkoff / porn sessions? Seems like a pretty absurd claim.

Just anything. Beheading videos. Whatever. I can't imagine anyone not realising this is a virtual certainty for some older kids to show younger kids.

> I see no claim from the person you're replying to that they think kids need more protection.

They called it "danger".

> there's a lot that can be done to restrict access in an authoritarian manner to those kids

But not to their kids' friends' older siblings. If you're not talking about that then I don't think you're particularly replying to my comment.

> I also personally believe education is more important than any sort of restriction, and am always against censorship or surveillance policies in general.

I think in this case this fights against the idea that some concepts or experiences are not appropriate for certain ages, and some of them are not currently curatable by parents in a way that they always have been throughout history.

[DiggyJohnson]

Unfiltered twitter is significantly less NSFW, just as a point of feedback. Good luck with you project tho

[Atotalnoob]

You probably shouldn’t show NSFW to non-logged in users.

Otherwise you could run afoul of various laws, since technically minors can access it

[t4t]

I will add a tagging system and hide nsfw posts from non-logged-in non-opted-in users this weekend.

[quesera]

Serious question: Is my browser blocking image content or something?

Or is there general consensus that plain body-font sized text is also an NSFW concern?

[Atotalnoob]

I didn’t see any non-text content, but I didn’t spend that much time looking.

NSFW text is a thing, there are porn sites that house explicit text for zoophilia, pedophilia, incest, rape, etc. I’m not saying this site has anything extreme or out there, but there are likely laws governing what text can be shown, it’s simpler to just require login, since that will also help protect you against COPPA and other restrictions for minors that are non NSFW related.

I’m all for free speech, but there are laws governing how certain text is handled

[quesera]

> there are laws governing how certain text is handled

Is that true?? In the US?

My instinctive metric[0] for NSFW is: Could a casual passerby see something that falls into a class of designated offensivenesses (e.g. sex of any kind, but not violence unless it's also sexual)?

Text in a giant font could certainly qualify. But I would not think that ordinary-sized body text would be problematic -- if the passerby has to pause and snoop, they are breaking other equally-important protocols to ascertain SFW or lack thereof.

0: I have not run this by an HR department, and I've worked from a home office for more than twenty years, so I may know nothing of which I speak!

[lazyasciiart]

A better metric might be “could a casual network filtering program pick up something that would be forbidden at work”.

[quesera]

Wouldn't such a network filter also trigger on random (in the sense of unpredictable to the reader) pages here on HN though? Or Reddit, etc?

I've never lived under such a regime, but all of the trigger words I can imagine at OP's site are also present in generally-SFW discussion forums.

[quesera]

Good point. I have never suffered such indignity, but I forget my privilege.

[dgfitz]

This is 100% the correct answer. It’s unfortunate nsfw was framed as a political question.

[aliasxneo]

It's probably hard to reach a consensus when every workplace is different. However, sexually explicit text would be inappropriate at most places I've worked.

[blharr]

There are image links to NSFW content

[mid-kid]

All you need to sidestep those laws is a little prompt that asks you if you're 18, you don't need to require a login. Unless you're talking about recent US laws.

[whalesalad]

honestly I think people just need to grow up. so many people get outraged and cry "this should be NSFW!" when it is literally just a naked human body. we are so prudish in our society.

[aliasxneo]

Not everyone share that view, and that’s OK.