Politicians Are Using Kids As Props To Pass Terrible, Harmful Legislation. Don’t Let Them Get Away With It::Amidst all of the attention paid to last week’s Senate hearing on child safety online, it remains stunning just how little time was actually spent on how to help children online. Instead, we saw pure theatrical nonsense, with Senators insisting (falsely) that these five tech CEOs could magically stop bad things from happening to kids,…
Can people stop using politicians and simply write Republicans?
Not doing that is a huge part of the problem… Democrats are the only ones trying to stop it. Even when we have a few barely dems that are just Republicans in all but name.
Look up the 1994 Crime Bill. Democrats are absolutely capable of supporting bad faith stuff for the protection of children.
1994 as in three decades ago? Two generations? What’s next, corrupt Illinois governors lol?
Okay than check out SOPA and PIPA. Both of which were only stopped by massive online protests and write in campaigns. I’m not seeing whole websites running Boycott KOSA banners this time either so…
And yes both SOPA and PIPA used the “protecting children” argument.
I can keep going. This is not a partisan problem.
Unfortunately, in this specific case, it’s a bipartisan problem. KOSA is supported by both parties and Biden and it’s awful. It’s why I’ve installed VPN software on all of my daughter’s devices.
So you’re telling me what isn’t going to happen is socialist and left leaning democrats will vote against it while every Republican and a good share of Democrats still will. While pretending like Democrats don’t actively try to fix legislation while Republicans make it worse? Meanwhile the same voters will vote in middle of the road Dems because no socialist wants to run.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Online_Safety_Act
Kinda looks like Republican think tank shit that gets backed by everyone because the public is too dumb not to turn against Democrats who voted against legislation that has ‘Kids’ in it.
There’s a reason why Democrats pick their battles carefully. People are fickle and socialist issues aren’t nearly as popular as the internet would have them think. If they were, Bernie would’ve been the Democratic contender lol.
If they were, Bernie would’ve been the Democratic contender lol.
Discredited yourself in one sentence, and managed to save it for last. I’m impressed!
They are trying to shove us back in the closets like they’ve done several times throughout history, and it’s bipartisan.
In other news Scientists have definitively determined there’s a 98.3% chance of getting wet if you jump into the ocean.
I don’t like the tech bro CEOs but this is just conservatives using kids for the 1,864,456th time to push authoritarian shit.
There is water at the bottom of the ocean
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) continues to march through the halls of Congress as though it’s the best thing since sliced bread, even though one of the co-creators of this bill clearly stated that her intention is to protect children from “the transgender” and to prevent “indoctrination” from the LGBT community.
Historically, “protecting children” was always about oppressing LGBT people eand even women. Protecting kids from turning gay or becoming cross-dressers. I’m sure it seems foolish to anyone here, but if you believe that being gay is a choice, it makes sense.
Comstock Laws, anyone?
It makes me wonder if these anti-porn laws are happening because queer people seem to be more likely to watch porn[1], and because of that, conservatives are looking at it as a causal thing rather than a correlative thing. If porn does help with getting to terms with your sexuality, then these laws should be worrying to the queer community. What conservatives may be doing here is trying to statistically decrease the amount of queer people in society, as getting rid of porn may reduce the amount of people who are aware of their own bisexuality, and those people may never engage with and/or have as much empathy for the queer community as a result.
[1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/02/28/more-porn-watch-more-likely-bisexual/
I think it’s more because both fall into their category of sexual immorality. They consider both to be psychosexual disorders that people develop. And while they do think they’re related they think they’re related in that way, much like how depression and substance abuse disorders are related. And yeah it’s similar in their minds to “rapid onset gender dysphoria” which is actually just parents not noticing that their kid was struggling with dysphoria until they found support that helped them process it and come out
hahahahaha this article is just propaganda… qq my poor CEO is getting lambasted in the news for being an idiot and we need to manage public perception, quick, publish an article defending our virtue
how bout just go die, Zuck, you’re a failure who has contributed only to the enshittification of society
qq actually doesn’t mean crying.
Also, wtf are you talking about?
More proof that kids ruin everything
ISPs taking away newsgroups
Pornhub deleting everything
Craigslist personals going bye bye
ISPs taking away newsgroups?
They took them away many years ago.
I still use Newsgroups for sailing the digital seas. 🤷♂️
Your ISPs, or do you pay for a third party like TweakNews or UsenetExpress?
I pay for one. I wasn’t aware ISPs ever provided them. TIL. I thought the comment meant they blocked usenets you pay for.
Yeah, believe it or not they would come free from your ISP, back in the day. Those were the days.
I believe what they are referring to is that access to them is no longer included in your isp package like email is, and requires additional payment, usually to a different company.
It’s almost like you need some of that damn Freeze Peach y’all are complaining so much about.
This is the reason it has to be non-negotiable. Yes, it’s expensive, in terms of a lot of people saying stuff you don’t want them to say. But in return, when people try to pull this shit, you get to laugh in their face and tell 'em go fuck themselves right in their ear.
And I don’t just mean the first-amendment narrow legal definition stuff in the US. I mean the much broader political principle that speech should not be restricted except in commission of a crime.
