Yep. Any time they throw buzzwords like “protection” “freedom” or “safety” into a bill, there’s usually an ulterior motive that runs counter to those ideals.
Comment on Congress’s push to protect kids online is at a crossroads (KOSA, US-focused)
Dasnap@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’ve reached a cynical point where anytime I see ‘protection of youth’ as a reason for something, I instantly assume an ulterior motive. I should want kids to be protected, but I’ve been conditioned to assume the worst whenever they’re brought up.
EccentricaGallumbits@lemmy.world 6 months ago
orclev@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s because if they had an actual good reason for doing something they would just say it. If they’re using the nebulous “protecting children” they’re just trying to invoke a boogeyman and shield themselves from criticism because nobody wants to go on record as being in favor of endangering children which is the implied stance if you oppose “protecting children”.
Dasnap@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m putting forward the ‘Stop Putting Puppies in Blenders’ bill, which states that everyone needs to give me their PlayStations.
isles@lemmy.world 5 months ago
From atop your mountain of Playstations, will you finally stop putting puppies in blenders?!