Comment on Microsoft endorses anti-LGBTQ online "child safety" bill KOSA night before Big Tech hearing (US Politics)

• Aatube@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Wouldn’t the law only make clear they’ll win if it fits the law’s definition of harm?

  source

  • thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The law’s defintion of harm is extremely broad. Charlie Jane Anders has a good discussion of this in The Internet Is About to Get a Lot Worse:

    “This clause is so vaguely defined that attorneys general can absolutely claim that queer content violates it — and they don’t even need to win these lawsuits in order to prevail. They might not even need to file a lawsuit, in fact. The mere threat of an expensive, grueling legal battle will be enough to make almost every Internet platform begin to scrub anything related to queer people.”

    source

    • Aatube@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Hmm, I was the impression that Attorneys General could already sue whomever they want, success rates aside. Is that not the case?

      source

      • thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Technically yes but judges get annoyed if there’s absolutely no case, so they rarely do – and if they threaten when there’s no case, larger companies will look at it and say the threat’s not real.

        source

        • -> View More Comments