> So does this mean Discord is scrapping its new face verification requirement for users,

No, they’re outsourcing the verification to an external company. Just not this one.

Side note: The verification is only if you want to remove content filters, join adult-themed servers and a couple other features. If you only want to chat with your friends and use voice then no verification is required.

▲

EmbarrassedHelp 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As far as I am aware, "sensitive content" is blocked even in private messages. So it impacts your ability to chat with friends.

	▲	Aurornis 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As far as I'm aware, the sensitive content filter is for images, not text chat. https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/18210995019671...

▲

blibble 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

probably find out the new identity verification firm is just a shell around the Thiel company

	▲	tclancy 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Or bought just long enough later to make it too late.

▲

giraffe_lady 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, until the upcoming batch of laws goes through classifying discussion of lgbtq people as inherently mature content. This is one half of a two part strategy by the american right to make queer content de facto illegal again without running into first amendment protections. Getting the payment processors banning "mature" content is the other leg of this stool.

▲

blackcatsec 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah I'm not sure many of the commenters realize that this is the targeted plan. They're already succeeding with over 20 (mostly Republican) states requiring age verification to access pornography.

The whole point of this plan is to then gate LGBTQ content behind the age gates, and then criminalize with extremely harsh penalties if teenagers somehow find a way around the age gates.

It's a slow process that's taking years and is slowly eroding our 1A rights, which is precisely how we've ended up in this mess to begin with. They didn't start with "Let's dissolve the Department of Education"--they started with "No Child Left Behind" and "mandatory testing in public schools".

No doubt they'll also age gate anything around women's health, including birthing and abortion information.

Oh, and every last one of these things will be felonies so they can strip away your right to vote in the process.

I'm sure at some point user-generated pornography like cam sites will also be outlawed.

▲

troosevelt 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it's possible if not probable you are correct, but a lot of this is not as coordinated as you might think. Religious conservatives just think porn is the devil, and more and more, I find non-religious people that view it as such, too, without some wider plot to take rights away from gay people. They're just prudes and they're happy to remove those rights when given the chance. This certainly is the average conservative, it's not a top-down marching order, it's just how they view things.

To back this up, you suggest that Bush's Child was part of a larger plan to get rid of education, but this is not an accurate assessment of Bush, Bush was a traditionalist in favor of traditional education, he's not of the Trump ilk, and Child was very much a Bush keystone. The push to eliminate the Dept of Education is 20 years farther down the road and pushed by very different people.

I say this because you should know your enemies, viewing everything as part of an elaborate top-down plan often gets you nowhere.

▲

blackcatsec 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Let me reframe a bit on this one.

You are correct that it's not a distinctly organized group, but very loosely organized with people continually carrying the baton forward in the relay race to remove our rights. Each runner is going to be slower or faster than the previous one, but they're still running in the same direction.

A cornerstone of NCLB was to expand the funding for Charter Schools across the United States (rather than fund public education). And while these schools are supposed to be non-religious, a small provision of NCLB allowed parents to choose private, religious options if their schools fell behind (which, given the draconian testing expectations, made it pretty easy).

So maybe the NCLB Act took the long way around to get where we're at today, but it was still always headed in this direction as soon as it offered private schools as a funded alternative to public school, rather than investing in our public schools with our public funds.

On the larger issue of what you're saying, it can be difficult to distill the information down in a way that makes sense when all of it is a very complex web of people and power and ideaologies.

At the end of the day, it took 50 years, but they did succeed in getting rid of Roe vs. Wade eventually. The relentless pursuit of this effort which took 50 years of adaptation and pushing as hard as possible in every area without relenting, even when they hadn't succeeded in every direction, is what made this happen.

I expect no less from these further pushes now that we're over that hump. Maybe these efforts fail today, but they will continue to push where they can until they figure out ways in which they can succeed.

It's quite relentless and those of us whom are on the other side of this definitely need to recognize the threat for what it is. Which, to your statement, makes this so much more dangerous than if it were just a single headed hydra.

▲

giraffe_lady 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you're the one not knowing your enemies here. There is a plan to strip queer people of rights, it is already well underway. You cannot possibly have an effective plan of opposition if you don't acknowledge the incredible economic, social, and technological resources that have been spent spreading and nurturing the prejudices that you can now call "uncoordinated." A lot of the individuals furthering these measures do not identify themselves with "a plot," sure, but it doesn't mean they don't have a role in it.

	▲	blackcatsec 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's certainly amped up in coordination over the last decade with the mixing of the tech oligarchs and the traditional religious oligarchs. What it reminds me of is the situation in Saudi Arabia. The religious elite allows the Saud family to rule all of the politics and economics of the government so as long as the religious elite have the ability to enforce religious law on the population. It's an unholy union of church and state and this marrying of those two in the United States should absolutely fucking terrify everyone.
	▲	Spivak an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There was a constellation of political groups who were internally coordinated weren't coordinated with one another because they wanted slightly different outcomes or had different motivations. The absolutely massive success of the coordination behind the LGBT political movement and refusal to be broken up and picked off piecemeal is what made various oppositions more bark than bite. But that isn't true anymore, as you and others have recognized. I mean the plan is outlined in Project 2025, we're well beyond small organizations screaming into the void and skulking around the political periphery. It's just out in the open which makes it a lot easier to rally around. And now, to my view, it's basically a race. The very well coordinated political opposition laser targeting transgender people as the weak link has to push them back into the closet before too many people know someone trans personally and realize they aren't scary monsters with pointed teeth. They failed with the gays but they were about an order of magnitude larger and so got more exposure.

▲

mrguyorama 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Giving the overprudish religious fanatics what they want to earn their support has actually been an open plan of the right wing in the US since at least Reagan.

Reagan chose not to do anything about the AIDS crisis partially because it was a "gay" disease, and the religious right was openly happy and proud that the gays were dying.