• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2114 months ago

    Any time a bill claims to be about protecting children, 10/10 times it’s actually hiding something more sinister that has nothing to do with that. I don’t trust this.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      69
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You’d be right in this case too. It’s extremely sketchy, it’s pretty much absolute censorship power with only an informal promise that it won’t be used for anything nefarious (but a refusal to actually codify anything preventing that). “Harmful content” is left very conveniently vague.

      • just another devA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        Can you elaborate on that claim? I couldn’t find anything substantial in the article.

    • sylver_dragon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      494 months ago

      The Crypto Wars have never ended. Governments dream of a world without public access to encryption and privacy. And many government attacks on encryption are done “for the children”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      It just addresses some stuff that legit sounds nice out of context, and it’s also covered in the “protect the children” package, so if you’re not voting on it, you want to put the children into danger. Same with the Hungarian anti-LGBT bill.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    874 months ago

    Bipartisan is a really bad sign. My money says this is not going to be aimed at actually addressing the underlying profit motive that drives big tech to purposefully promote misery through their algorithm designs, instead it will be further restriction on users freedoms and privacy.

    • The Snark Urge
      link
      fedilink
      English
      354 months ago

      That’s how broken democracy has become - bipartisan legislation is not a good indicator that a bill is uncontroversial and useful.

      • bizarroland
        link
        fedilink
        174 months ago

        Given that they have pushed this bill I don’t know like what is this the sixth go round, I’m sure that there is actually nothing good in this bill for the average American internet user.

        At the same time I’m sure it’ll be very good for the average American corporate technological oligopoly.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    57
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Not one mention of the word “KOSA” in the article, had to check if this is the “appoint one person in the commerce department and have their definition of ‘harmful’ be what the government now can totally ban from the united states internet” bill.

    If Trump wins, “harmful” will be defined as any mention online that the United States use to be a democracy instead of a kingship.

  • Scott
    link
    fedilink
    English
    414 months ago

    <_<

    “PrOtEcT tHe ChIlDrEn!!!?!!!”

  • qevlarr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    394 months ago

    This is why I teach my kids to lie they are grown ups on the internet. Fuck big tech deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for my kids, with no way to override it as a parent. Their legal department CYA policies interest do not align with my and my kids’ interest.

    Moreover, they’re fighting the previous war. The real needs of me and my children to be safe online, aren’t about porn and swearing. It’s about death threats and doxxing, about scammers trying to get your passwords. Here’s the thing: That has NOTHING to do with being a minor. EVERYONE needs those protections. Big tech is intentionally focusing attention on children so they can keep getting away with spending zero dollars on stopping bad actors

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    354 months ago

    That’s a nice way of saying “the kind of censorship that will destroy the internet as we know it”

  • Dr. Wesker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    As if we didn’t need more reason to return to snolnet values and small, self-hosted communities and comms.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    174 months ago

    If anything we need bills to prevent media companies from controlling our national dialectics.

    If this is only used to default user profiles into “Safe” modes and add additional tools for personal filtering then great. I’m betting on further malicious action by the government until people start taking responsibility and forcing our public officials to account for their actions.

  • sunzu
    link
    fedilink
    124 months ago

    “Protect the kid” = daddy gonna stick a finger in your butt-hole, if any resistance will be supressed with coercive power of the state.

    Enjoy!