Submitted 1 week ago by thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/07/congresss-push-protect-kids-online-is-crossroads/
Legislators are considering attaching KOSA (the anti-LGBTQ+ censorship bill, aka the Kids Online Safety Act) to must-pass legislation authorizing the FAA. As EFF points out, the latest version of KOSA is still a censorship bill.
So if you’re in the US, it’s once again a good time to contact your Congresspeople. EFF’s got an action here that makes it makes it easy, and so does www.stopkosa.com
If these fuckwits really wanted to ‘protect the children’ they’d have a .kids tld with regulation. Then parents and schools can choose to filter everything but that tld, or not.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Happy Tuesday!
Congrats to my colleagues and all the great journalists who won a Pulitzer Prize.
Read some of their work here, and send award-winning news tips to: cristiano.lima@washpost.com.
Today:
Congressional efforts to expand protections for kids online face a critical juncture this week as lawmakers weigh whether to hitch those bills to a must-pass aviation package.
The original article contains 57 words, the summary contains 57 words. Saved 0%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Dasnap@lemmy.world 1 week 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.
orclev@lemmy.world 1 week 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 1 week ago
I’m putting forward the ‘Stop Putting Puppies in Blenders’ bill, which states that everyone needs to give me their PlayStations.
EccentricaGallumbits@lemmy.world 1 week ago
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.