Not the US government, republicans and one random house dem that seems to hate technology.
The U.S. Government Wants To Control Online Speech to “Protect Kids”
Submitted 1 year ago by HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/us-government-about-control-speech-online-protect-kids
Comments
randon31415@lemmy.world 1 year ago
knyuqlr@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The bill has 21 Democrats as cosponsors (22 Republicans). Source: www.congress.gov/bill/…/cosponsors
Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 1 year ago
oMg boTh sIdeS aRe nOt tHe sAmE… except for when it comes to eroding freedoms
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not the US government, republicans and one random house dem that seems to hate technology.
Whose the Dem?
QubaXR@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Somehow it never crossed their minds to stop selling firearms to teens, but vendor Internet in the name of protecting kids? Sign us up. Fuck that.
Pretty much any bill, worldwide, that includes the phrase “project kids” is always about pushing censorship, government surveillance and other forms of oppression on everyone. And guess what: zero actual benefit to kids.
whataboutshutup@discuss.online 1 year ago
Why old men are so obsessed with kids? Are they pedo or something?
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
It’s never about kids. If they gave half a fuck about kids, we’d have free school lunches and teachers would be paid a fair salary.
So long as the internet is around to distribute fact-checks and officer-involved homicide videos they have no plausible lies by which the 80% of us in poverty or precarity should tolerate the abuse of plutocrats and capitalists.
So this is a first amendment issue: it’s about suppression of political speech. It always was 🌍 👩🚀 🔫 👨🚀 🌑
T156@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They’re a convenient scapegoat. You can accuse the other side of not caring about/endangering children for political points, and children don’t have politically-relevant opinions, or votes, so you’re never going to have children speaking up and going “that’s not correct”, or protesting against you for a law you’ve passed. If they do end up protesting, you can point fingers at the parents and say that they’re indoctrinating the children.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is quite scary. I don’t know if it being on the calendar means they’re guaranteed to vote on it but the text of the bill would completely fuck the Fediverse. You literally need paid personnel to comply with these regulations.
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Host somewhere else. They’re not the world police.
EatMyDick3@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They should raid people’s homes in foreign countries, we fucked those muslims in afganastan over what they did to us we can do it again if needed. We could also just block their service, would be even easier if not less fun than kicking their asses with armed troops.
mPony@kbin.social 1 year ago
every time they say it's to "protect the children" or "protect freedom" it is invariably neither.
viliam@feddit.ch 1 year ago
Fine, so who will be judging if there’s a depressive content on the internet, a psychologist? Also how about non-US sites, will they be banned or something?
pglpm@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Culturally we’re going back to the Middle Ages…
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Specifically the Dark Ages.
salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social 1 year ago
Perhaps politicians should concentrate on making it so there’s less depressing stuff in the world for anyone to see and hear, and not creating more of it with things like this rubbish bill. 🤷♀️
ccf@ccf.sh 1 year ago
TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 1 year ago
I like how two of ya'll had the very same idea and posted the same comic within a minute of each other. If you aren't the same person, that is impressive.
karrbs@kbin.social 1 year ago
Isn't this also the bill that could screw up encryption too?
LexiconBexicon@lemmynsfw.com 1 year ago
Knowing Biden he’s all in on this, he signed off on the Patriot Act too so f*** him
neoliberals are just as bad as Republicans
Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Neoliberals are conservatives. They go on the same smoldering pile.
RobotToaster@infosec.pub 1 year ago
“The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” - Julius Nyerere
EnderWi99in@kbin.social 1 year ago
Not even close, but try again. They just look the same when you're so far left you need to squint to see anyone to the right of you. There is a massive gap between "neoliberals" as you call them, and the modern conservative electorate. Those "neoliberals" also represent the majority of voters on the left, hence the guy who is president being one of them. Stay mad though.
Xylight@lemmy.xylight.dev 1 year ago
woah no way
in other news, every sixty seconds in Africa, a minute passes.
sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
it has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with destroying privacy
Natha@discuss.online 1 year ago
Isn’t it something that China has been doing for a while? In their version, it’s called ‘spreading positive energy’.
jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
It’s almost like everything the US said about China was just a projection of their own insecurities.
It might get to a point where China actually is relatively more liberating than “stable democracies” in internet access.
bappity@lemmy.world 1 year ago
why is it always the worst laws proposed under the guise of protecting children
jantin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because you can’t argue that. Any other ground reason for policy can be challenged or counterargued or relies on values which are arguable.
No one is going to plainly argue “ok but how about we do not protect children?”. And if someone tries a different angle such as “this law is not really going to protect anyone and will bring a lot of problems for children and adults alike” it will be easily dismissed as “you insidious snake, why do you want to hurt children?! Don’t sabotage child protection!”. Which autokills conversation.
hellfire103@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
What else is new?
WhyDoesntThisThingWork@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This doesn’t seem different from what many if not most major platforms are already doing voluntarily. Just replace the word “depressing” with the word “toxic” and suddenly everyone will support this.
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
Good luck with that. They can’t even stop child abuse online.
Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Dunno why you’re being downvoted
throwing_handles@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Hear me out, we have to protect our kids from the dirty jews, let’s make concentration camps to save our PRECIOUS LITTLE KIDS!!
/S /S /S
iMastari@kbin.social 1 year ago
Protect kids from guns would be better.
EnderWi99in@kbin.social 1 year ago
Jack O'Neil's son would still be alive today if he didn't get a hold of his father's gun. But then we wouldn't have Stargate. It's sort of a toss up to me.
ProfessorZhu@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why take a principled stand against those who are pushing this when you can just say “government” and leave everyone thinking this is a bipartisan problem?
Diplomjodler@feddit.de 1 year ago
This headline could have been written 20 years ago.
EatMyDick3@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Good, we need to protect the Children, we shouldn’t be allowing people to go around grooming kids freely, there needs to be limits on this bullshit.
sour@kbin.social 1 year ago
Children
._.
Blizzard@lemmy.zip 1 year ago
Image