[safety1st]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I read the announcement and other than the risk of a slippery slope into more invasive ID demands, I'm not sure I have a huge problem with it.

The default experience will be the "teen" experience - they list what that entails - stuff that's flagged as adult/NSFW/etc. is blurred out until your age is verified, which for most(?) people will require ID or face scan. DMs/friend requests from people you don't know take some extra clicks to view. Fine.

It depends on how broad the definition of adult content ends up being I guess, but I'm simply not convinced that requiring ID to view "adult" content is the end of the world. If that means porn, I'm 100% OK with it, put porn behind gates. It has become far too easy to access. It's 2026 and we now have a generation of gooning addicts out there who never have actual sex and it's basically a guarantee that they won't find partners or start families any time soon, exacerbating an already problematic decline in the birth rate. This is not a version of society or anyone's "rights" that I care to defend. You want to goon, show ID. That's how it was before the Internet anyway.

On the other hand if it means any speech that the platform deems to be "controversial" will be blurred out then my response will not be to submit ID, I'll simply limit how I use the platform. Anonymous speech continues to matter and needs protection. But Discord was never the entity that was going to provide that protection.

I mean Discord is a gaming chat room. Expectations should be set by that fact. I don't need a gaming chat room to be NSFW, or even host i.e. political speech really. I get that people have used it for more than gaming, but it was always pretty clear what it was. If people don't like that this gaming chat room no longer supports other uses, they should switch to an alternative.

[heavyset_go]

We're all going to have to scan our faces and upload our IDs just to use the internet because of your weird obsession with birth rates? Wonderful.

[throwaway290]

> we're all

Speak for yourself, I didn't touch discord for 3 years.

[heavyset_go]

I don't use it, but it doesn't start or stop at Discord. Age checking is already implemented as live face video & ID uploads and already deployed by every large tech company all over the world. They just have to flip a switch in our market.

To use my phone, Google wants me to verify my identity and age[1][2].

They're boiling the frog, give it a few years, and if you want to use any internet connected device at all, you'll need to sacrifice your face and ID as tribute. If you want to talk to someone else, you'll need to identify yourself with the platform or network on which you communicate. If you want to run an app that serves you any user generated content in any capacity, you'll need to identify yourself first.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-play-users-are-starting...

[2] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/10071085?hl=en

[unethical_ban]

Clearly the outrage is about the slippery slope and the current techno-fascism gripping the US. I'm not being sarcastic.

You do it for the children now, you poo-poo concerns because "who uses discord for non gaming anyway" and you're just letting the foxes in the henhouse.

Twelve months from now and they'll want it for every chat.

[safety1st]

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it's a fallacy. That is the origin of the term, it describes a type of argument that's logically invalid. Yeah I am concerned that things could get worse and this might be the first step to broader censorship that we don't want, but a fallacious argument alone is unpersuasive to anyone who tries to form opinions rationally. Specific evidence needs to exist for the claim for it to be convincing.

Since slippery slopes are invalid by nature they're a type of argument that can be made for pretty much anything. If the case here is that a slippery slope is being used to defend pornographers and the "right to goon," I'm not on board. I think we have a long way to go to roll back porn's grip on teens and adults alike and reduce the harm it does to relationships, and this is just the beginning. Take for instance how Instagram at this point is basically a lead generation service for fraudulent OnlyFans businesses that sell parasocial relationships with a porn model's image where the customers aren't actually talking to her, they're talking to a team of guys in a basement in Eastern Europe somewhere. I think you shut down OnlyFans, you prosecute Meta, and to the extent where Discord is doing the same thing IG is, you prosecute Discord too. There's a long long list of things that needs to happen and shutting down the porn pipeline for teens on Discord is just the beginning.

[YurgenJurgensen]

First it was “just extreme porn”, then “just porn”, then “anywhere that could potentially contain adult content”, then VPNs, now all social media, all in about a year. You’re claiming slippery slopes aren’t real while in the gift shop at Splash Mountain.

[throwaway290]

In Russia none of that slippery slope stuff happened. Just they murdered journalists and opposition, installed TPUs at every ISP and passed a law making any VPN related advice illegal. And people are fine with that apparently

In Thailand porn was straight up illegal for ages and everything else was sane and open... until new government decided to kill freedom of speech.

So slippery slope is illusion. If government is bad it don't need to try to be so complicated and gradual. It can't even think so far ahead, they will no longer be elected when that times comes.

As for social media banning for teens that's just common sense. Social media is fuming pile of garbage designed to make people feel miserable so that corporate overlords make $$$ https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58570353.amp

[YurgenJurgensen]

There’s a trivial way of fixing social media without mass surveillance or free speech restrictions: Just put a punitive tax on advertising revenue. People can say whatever they want, but the incentives behind social media disappear. This won’t be implemented because this was never about making society a better place.

And your examples only show that where there’s no safeguards, governments don’t need to be subtle, but in semi-functional democracies, they still need to at least pretend to be electable.

[tikitaviriki2]

No, it started with "protecting the children" around 2010, and followed the bit-by-bit step-by-step boiling the frog approach for years, until the grip on the internet (as well as offline publications) became strong enough to do you know what to you know whom.

[throwaway290]

pls explain how 2010 is related to current censorship

it's not slippery slope when it's things that happened at different times. there are examples where x did not lead to y as well as where y happened without x happening before it.

[fc417fc802]

Outside of formal logic an argument does not need to be logically sound to have merit. You are extrapolating from "logical fallacy" to (something approximating) "invalid line of reasoning in most or all cases" which is simply not correct.

There are many potentially slippery slopes in politics. The extent to which they prove to be a problem in practice depends entirely on context. Approximately none of those cases will involve formal logic.

[heavyset_go]

You're displaying the fallacy fallacy[1], the assumption that because an argument contains a logical fallacy, it must be false.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

[unethical_ban]

Taking away porn access would be great except you can't do it at scale without with eliminating porn from the Internet altogether and prosecuting anyone who shares any, or by eliminating privacy and anonymity from the Internet altogether.

I agree with your take on the damage of porn to the youth but don't yet agree that asking the government to watch every conversation is worth it. (That's what you're enabling long term)

[safety1st]

In order to make sure businesses aren't giving porn to teens, you can require they do meaningful age verification at the time they want to provide the porn. You can impose criminal penalties on a domestic business which doesn't do this, and other penalties on foreign businesses (such as locking them out of the payments network). You don't need to get 100%, even partial success will act as a deterrent. This is how the world worked before the Internet, you needed to show ID to buy porn, and public opinion is in favor of the world working this way again. Crucially, penalties on businesses (not consumers, and starting with the biggest ones) are the way you need to go because this is the only way this can feasibly be enforced.

The libertarian concerns around privacy, freedom of expression and surveillance are all valid, but they're downstream. We have hard evidence that porn damages sexual health and relationships, and it has basically zero value to society; it's like digital cigarettes in this sense. We can't allow ourselves to be paralyzed on this issues because of a theoretical slippery slope. Whether Discord is going about this the right way is open for debate, and whether legislation solves the porn problem without introducing surveillance risks is also a good discussion to have. But the porn as well as the fraud and exploitation which always seem to accompany that industry need to go. Libertarians would be wise not to conflate the endorsement of privacy with an endorsement of porn -- most people support the former to some degree, but when people come forward with enthusiastic support for the latter, more often than not their motivation is addiction or profit, not a crowd the defenders of privacy want to be lumped in with.

[trashb]

I don't care what degenerate stuff you look at as you are free to do so.

Privacy is a fundamental right, at that my opinion one of the more important ones, as when the right to privacy is removed the other ones are impossible to keep.

To give up the right to privacy because you don't want kids looking at degenerate stuff on the internet is stupid, additionally the kids will work around your barriers.

How about we teach kids (and adults) the dangers, putting the responsibility on the consumer instead of micromanaging/censoring everyone's information intake.

If a minor drives in a car without a license we also don't require the car brand to install license & age verification in each car. We punish the kid that did it.

[Nasrudith]

Why do you want the children to grow up in an Orwellian dystopia?