- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Not the US government, republicans and one random house dem that seems to hate technology.
The bill has 21 Democrats as cosponsors (22 Republicans). Source: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409/cosponsors
oMg boTh sIdeS aRe nOt tHe sAmE… except for when it comes to eroding freedoms
Not the US government, republicans and one random house dem that seems to hate technology.
Whose the Dem?
Blumenthal, of course.
What about the other 20?
Why do say of course?
He’s always the one giving a ‘bipartisan’ veneer to these awful bills. Here’s one trying to end encryption, which he co-sponsored with Lindsey Graham
WTF then he isn’t a Democrat if he co authoring bills with Graham.
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.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3663/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs
I guess we’ll just become criminals and host our servers in countries that actually respect freedom.
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.
every time they say it’s to “protect the children” or “protect freedom” it is invariably neither.
deleted by creator
Isn’t this also the bill that could screw up encryption too?
it has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with destroying privacy
why is it always the worst laws proposed under the guise of protecting children
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.
deleted by creator
Protect kids from guns would be better.
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.
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?
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.
Removed by mod
Children
._.
deleted by creator
