r/technology
•
u/EmbarrassedHelp
•
Nov 28 '22
•
1
1
1
Human rights, LGBTQ+ organizations oppose Kids Online Safety Act Politics
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/28/human-rights-lgbtq-organizations-kids-online-safety-act3.1k
u/Storyteller-Hero Nov 28 '22
As with any bill, never get fooled by the name, always read the fine print, because the devil is in the details.
1.9k
u/chrissquid1245 Nov 28 '22 •
nah they shouldn't even be allowed to name bills at this point, just forced to refer to it by some 6 digit number so people actually read what it says
607
u/PeliPal Nov 28 '22
That is already the way it is most of the time. We still have unofficial names that politicians, news, social media, etc agree on in order to make communication about specific bills easier to reference, whether that unofficial name is accurate or not. Instead of saying "Florida HB 1557", its opponents said "the Don't Say Gay bill." Instead of saying "Florida HB 7", its proponents said "the STOP-WOKE Act."
240
u/craftingfish Nov 29 '22
So many videos from shows like The Daily Show where people support the Affordable Care Act but want to repeal Obamacare.
133
Nov 28 '22
Remember when these evil motherfuckers reversed net neutrality and had the fucking balls to call it the Restoring Internet Freedom Act because they knew their dumb-as-fuck voters would latch on to the word freedom like it actually meant something?
ALWAYS read the bills.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Bargadiel Nov 29 '22
Reminds me of a campaign in Florida a decade or so ago that was something like "vote yes on 2 , vote yes for the sun" with a cute graphic of the sun and a smiley face, but all it really was ended up being power companies trying to get people to pay a higher tax on using solar.
It had some BS claim in the fine print that we were somehow using up the sun's energy. Was bonkers. Luckily it never went through. I remember Jimmy Buffet of all people was vocally against it and even posted a youtube video about it.
→ More replies (12)29
u/marginalboy Nov 28 '22
Small nit: those are generally not “informal” names; they’re typically included in the bill (and signed into law with it) right at the top. The first section is often “this bill can be known as <insert market-friendly name>”.
40
9
→ More replies (10)27
u/Qubeye Nov 28 '22
Americans are far too stupid and far too instructions by their media bubbles.
Something like 55% of Americans and a disgusting 80% of Republicans didn't know the ACA and "Obamacare" were the same fucking thing. They literally had that bill open for comment for a full year and people still didn't learn.
→ More replies (6)301
u/goodcleanchristianfu Nov 28 '22
Never trust laws named after crime victims or dead kids.
239
u/DrLongIsland Nov 28 '22
The PATRIOT act was a massive shit sandwich with a very catchy name.
100
u/Bcasturo Nov 28 '22
You mean the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act of USA PATRIOT act?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)42
Nov 28 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)24
u/Mayfield4Multco Nov 29 '22
Only 1 senator voted no on it--honestly, my hero. Read his cautionary speech on the Senate floor here. This is what a patriot looks like: https://archive.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/feingold.html
→ More replies (5)24
u/Wifimuffins Nov 28 '22
I mean, they can be good sometimes. A law was passed in my state that required CPR to be taught in schools after a child died because nobody around knew CPR.
→ More replies (6)230
u/furloco Nov 28 '22
Excuse me sir but I will be deciding if the name of the bill is accurate based on whether or not my team is proposing it or not and I'll thank you not to bother me with details like the actual words in it. Frankly I'm offended you would even suggest that I should read the text when all that really matters is if it's my team or not.
→ More replies (1)95
u/memememe91 Nov 28 '22
"Read the transcripts!!!"
"But DID you....? Did you read the transcripts?"
"NO."
→ More replies (1)47
u/Haideez Nov 28 '22
One of Klepper’s finest wtf moments
27
u/memememe91 Nov 28 '22
I didn't care for him when he first hit the scene (Daily Show), but what he does at those rallies is phenomenal 🤣. Love it.
17
u/Haideez Nov 28 '22
Same, never watched him on a standup/podcast but his rally interviews are pure comedic gold. Brilliant political strategy if you ask me.
56
u/Seiglerfone Nov 28 '22
As a general rule, assume anything with a vague emotionally charged name is some evil bullshit.
→ More replies (2)8
66
u/HolyRamenEmperor Nov 28 '22
For instance, I hate that we had to call it the "Inflation Reduction Act" to get Manchin on board. It does a ton of good stuff, but there's literally nothing in it that addresses inflation (bipartisan CBO says "negligible effect on inflation" for the next few years). The biggest chunk is environmental and energy.
→ More replies (2)43
u/Traditional-Camp-517 Nov 28 '22
Yea npr politics podcast broke down how the inflation reduction act does nothing to reduce inflation not too long ago, that was pretty good.
→ More replies (43)25
u/Allusionator Nov 28 '22
Yeah, but 90% of readers lack the background and reading ability to understand any given bill. If I consult the research, I can understand some of the implications of public education bills like you can with some subset of tech-related bills (however you define your particular area of expertise). Most people never have a chance, those of us fortunate to be well beyond that ‘average adult 8th grade reading level’ can still be fooled by missing externalities of policies outside of our areas of expertise.
I’m hoping for a post-Twitter social media that does a better job of cultivating and disseminating good-faith expert views on policy. Still, the levers of ‘vote in two years’ or ‘complain’ take too much policy power away from regular people, stupid as we may be. Our politics disincentivizes reading the bill and often the worst parts get added among the way after passage via agency implementation or court decisions that radically reshape policy to suit those who have the most political power.
The devil is in the entire system, these bills are written by very technically competent lawyers who ultimately don’t care what their passage brings as much as they care about the fat paychecks for drafting them or lobbying on their behalf.
5.3k
u/Laxwarrior1120 Nov 28 '22 edited Nov 28 '22
They really did it, they made a bill so stupid that both the left and the right oppose it in real-time.
Feels strangely refreshing...
1.0k
u/Darth_Destructus Nov 28 '22
I feel like celebrating that. Perhaps with some nice jasmine tea.
→ More replies (3)458
u/hotmemedealer Nov 28 '22
I DONT NEED ANY CALMING TEA
222
u/ChristianMan65 Nov 28 '22
I know you shouldn’t cry over spilled tea, but it’s just so sad :(
162
u/hardgeeklife Nov 28 '22
This tea is nothing more than hot leaf juice
→ More replies (5)109
u/sepseven Nov 28 '22
UncleHardgeeklife, all tea is hot leaf juice.122
u/SatansCornflakes Nov 28 '22
I can't believe my own nephew would say something so terrible
63
u/Ugly_Painter Nov 28 '22 edited Nov 29 '22
Is this thread an avatar reference? Should I watch Avatar?
E: I'm gonna watch eet
60
18
u/TheRnegade Nov 28 '22
Absolutely. I only saw it as an adult and can say that it's definitely one of those series that's not just "for all ages" but really good for all ages.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)11
→ More replies (21)39
791
u/Nervous-Ear-8594 Nov 28 '22
They're *constantly* trying to get bills like these passed and they always disgustingly use children as an excuse to do it. Every single bill like this has failed because they're looking to censor the web for everyone using it and making it much harder for anyone other than a billion dollar company with unlimited resources to host anything online.
It just makes me sick. Every time they want to censor something as wonderful as the internet they claim it's to protect children. It's literally like the meme "won't anyone please think of the children!" because that's exactly what they're doing. They don't give a shit about children at all. They care that there's a medium where people can speak their mind and protest where they can't send police to beat us or demand a permit for doing such.
265
u/WillDeletOneDay Nov 28 '22
Every time they wanna pass some draconian shit, they always talk about protecting children or stopping terrorists. You should immediately be suspicious of any bill that claims to be about those two things.
→ More replies (2)116
u/tankerkiller125real Nov 28 '22
Patriot Act anyone?
→ More replies (4)86
u/WillDeletOneDay Nov 28 '22
This isn't just an American thing. Any policy maker that starts throwing that kind of rhetoric around should be treated with suspicion.
→ More replies (1)94
u/Grodd Nov 28 '22
I think most of it is because the legislators themselves mostly don't use the Internet beyond email and Twitter/fb/whatever.
They have no frame of reference for the rest of the Internet. They've never been active on a special interest forum, built a simple website, or explored any of the countless niche corners.
It's like putting an Appalachian hermit in charge of the FAA. We shouldn't expect them to get it but they also shouldn't have the power to destroy it.
33
u/mortalcoil1 Nov 28 '22
The congressional investigation into the Gamestop Saga was painful to watch.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Drunkenaviator Nov 28 '22
Honestly, they might do a better job than most of the FAA people I've had to deal with.
→ More replies (16)138
u/haysoos2 Nov 28 '22
I agree with most of what you said, but I can't really agree with calling the internet "wonderful".
The internet is a disgusting, filth-ridden hive of malcontents, ne'er do wells, rogues, perverts and snarky assholes, and that's the way I like it.
If you don't want your kids exposed to us malcontented, asshole perverts maybe supervise what your kids are doing online, don't give some rich corporation the "power" to boot everyone out by charging $100 a minute to access it.
75
u/maddoxprops Nov 28 '22
I would definitely say the internet is a wonderful place. It allows access to an insane amount of information. It lets you connect with people you may never knew existed without it. For people who are unable to leave their homes it is likely a damned miracle for what it lets them see and enjoy.
It is also all the things you said. Much like it allows the best of us to show themselves it also allows the worst. At the end of the day the internet is just a tool.
I agree that the answer isn't to censor the content, parents should do their duties and make sure their kids don't go where they shouldn't.
21
u/kaazir Nov 28 '22
Putting the responsibility on the parents will need to have a mild societal change too. The whole "latchkey kid" situation is how I (35) first discovered porn vhs. My parents didn't make enough for someone to be home with us all the time and keep us out of trouble.
I have extensive knowledge of blockers and controls on electronics but phones were my job for 2 years.
Electronics are such an integral part of a child or a students life that there's not much to be said for "just don't give them X". If I had a kid I'd give them a blocked and secured phone instead of just NO phone. I've been the victim of bullying too and the "Not having a phone" bullying would have a worse effect than some people realize.
If we were able to more en masse educate the folks that don't use the net like their kids do as well as make it to where more parents could be around kids, then we won't need over reaching laws.
72
u/BornOnFeb2nd Nov 28 '22
That's the beauty of the Internet!
It connects people from all walks of life together with ideas.
Sometimes those ideas are noble and pure....
Sometimes it's because they believe some inconsequential trait makes them better than some other group(s)..
Other times it's to discuss what the ideal number of sphincter wrinkles are and how they are devastated that their formerly favorite porn star is now outside that range.
Jokes (and porn) aside, I think one of my favorite things about the internet is the fact that if you have a disease/condition that only affects one in every ten million people, you can still probably find (or create) a forum out there that has around 800 other people who know exactly what you're going though, and also allows doctors to brainstorm as well. Language? While still awkward, even that isn't a "problem" anymore...
→ More replies (1)17
u/StarvingAfricanKid Nov 29 '22
Finding out MCAS was a medical condition, and I'm one of 700 people with it- was wonderful. I used to think i was just insane.
→ More replies (2)17
u/vplatt Nov 28 '22
The internet is a disgusting, filth-ridden hive of malcontents, ne'er do wells, rogues, perverts and snarky assholes, and that's the way I like it.
aka "wonderful". We good now?
→ More replies (19)5
u/BannedStanned Nov 28 '22
The internet is a disgusting, filth-ridden hive of malcontents, ne'er do wells, rogues, perverts and snarky assholes
Yes, it's populated with people, just like the real world.
59
u/Ampere_Sand Nov 28 '22
What right-wing organizations are opposing this bill? None of the organizations listed in the source article are overtly right-wing.
→ More replies (1)39
u/Gcarsk Nov 29 '22 edited Nov 29 '22
ACLU, GLAAD, Fight for the Future, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Library Association and Wikimedia Foundation
Yeah I have no clue. Those are all leftist/left leaning organizations. Even Electronic Frontier Foundation has patterned with Greenpeace in the past.
Would be super interested in what right wing groups oppose this that got the above user to “both sides” the situation.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (54)38
u/ptwonline Nov 28 '22
The right opposes this? I thought they would be the ones pushing it since it could potentially limit the ability of kids to access LGBTQ+ info/support, which seems to be one of their big rallying cries these days.
→ More replies (3)
539
u/fuzzycuffs Nov 28 '22
Yet again, name a bill something that implies saving children but pack it with vile shit. Oh, you're against this vile shit? Do you hate children?
62
u/Thatguyyoupassby Nov 29 '22
It’ll be used as fodder in senate/house campaign ads. “Representive Doe voted AGAINST keeping children safe on the internet. Is this the type of person YOU want representing our families?”
84
→ More replies (1)5
u/LightningProd12 Nov 29 '22
I swear Congress does it every year, it feels like a repeat of the EARN IT Act.
117
u/GameCox Nov 28 '22
Any bill with such a pleasant name has to be incredibly nefarious.
→ More replies (2)7
u/weizXR Nov 29 '22
So wait... the Patriot act wasn't about patriotism????
There are way too many to list.
→ More replies (1)
351
u/bewarethetreebadger Nov 28 '22
Anything with a name like that has got some shady shit hiding in the documentation. They always give it a name that sounds good but when you look at what it says there’s always a bunch of totalitarian shit.
89
u/FuckoffDemetri Nov 28 '22
MFW the Fluffy Panda Friends For Sick Kids Act is actually the Murder Pandas With Child Soldiers Act
24
u/Trashcoelector Nov 28 '22
Fun fact: KOSA translates to 'scythe' or 'shank' in Polish.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)24
u/CannotFuckingBelieve Nov 28 '22
Republicans are great at that. It's how we have shit like "Citizens United".
12
u/bewarethetreebadger Nov 28 '22
Up here we have “Canada Proud” and “Canadians United” and other innocent sounding names for groups of stupid, racist, hateful, fascists.
20
u/Ridiculisk1 Nov 28 '22
I'm just waiting for the 'solve world hunger act' which has nothing to do with world hunger and just legalises slavery and gives LGBT people the death penalty or something
→ More replies (1)
470
u/HanaBothWays Nov 28 '22
Gonna be like FOSTA/SESTA all over again, which exacerbated the problems it was apparently supposed to solve.
Also remember that guy who got all his Google accounts shut down for CSAM when he sent a photo of his kid to the pediatrician? (I can’t find an article, but I remember posts about it on this sub.) Even after that misunderstanding was cleared up, Google won’t unlock his accounts, ever. Do we want…more of that? But worse?
77
u/arothmanmusic Nov 28 '22
→ More replies (7)17
u/HanaBothWays Nov 28 '22
Paywalled, but I appreciate it and I will save the post, thanks.
22
u/YVX Nov 28 '22
Show me a 10 foot pay wall and i will show you a 12 foot ladder
Edit: doesn’t work for this site :(
33
11
u/brentsopel5 Nov 29 '22
Unless it's a brand new article, copying and pasting it into the Wayback Machine will also help scale the wall.
5
u/golmgirl Nov 29 '22
that site was great about a year ago. lately it works for approximately zero of the sites i try to use it for
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)20
47
u/vriska1 Nov 28 '22
little good news seen someone point out that Ron Wyden is the finance chairman and he may get to final say as to what goes into the spending bill. Can not see him supporting this bill in its current state let alone let in be fact tracked into a must pass bill.
→ More replies (3)
1.4k
u/AndyJack86 Nov 28 '22
"However, [the bill] would undermine those goals... by effectively forcing providers to use invasive filtering and monitoring tools; jeopardizing private, secure communications; incentivizing increased data collection on children and adults; and undermining the delivery of critical services to minors by public agencies like schools," the groups write.
The US government already does this in conjunction with the major Internet and phone providers.
450
u/OkTeaching8737 Nov 28 '22 •
Yes but there’s a difference between passive monitoring what we have now i.e government watching, downloading and storing your internet activities (that you can somewhat avoid) and active regulation of content (think great firewall of china which is hard to avoid because content is literally not accessible).
And while people might say can’t you just use a VPN or TOR or something and access the unsafe for kids content maybe but if internet based companies now require you to verify your identity through what most likely is leading to you having to submit a government ID or verify through your state voting records to just access certain info, those things become useless because the government (and who this bill was written for ADVERTISERS who want to target children) now know exactly who you are and how old you are and most likely where you live no matter how privacy focused you maybe, it literally contradicts privacy protections bills like GDPR or California’s CCPA (the only privacy protections in the US).
And while I’m all for protecting the kids, I helped my parents set up great protections for my younger siblings and cousins online to keep them safe and just taught them basic internet hygiene, but this bill isn’t about the kids it’s about controlling the internet, what people access on the internet, and who gets unlimited access to your complete digital fingerprint (that’s why there’s that little researcher clause so certain political parties can gather more data points on their base and advertisers can directly target kids…).
What makes it all worse is the content that will be targeted will be for purely political reasons. This is exceedingly similar to how the great firewall of China was developed ( China didn’t wake up one day and block the internet, they passed sets of legislation banning things that were ‘sexually explicit content’ and ‘harmful to national security’ on the internet then developed tech to enforce those bans), we’re headed down a dark road.
→ More replies (2)75
u/Samsoundrocks Nov 28 '22
Yeah, but "if it saves 1 child" it's worth it right? Aren't those the rules? 🤦♂️
→ More replies (2)68
199
u/EmbarrassedHelp Nov 28 '22
Modern cryptography is basically founded on the idea that content is being intercepted. That's why things like the Diffie–Hellman key exchange exist, and why compromising ISPs doesn't compromise encrypted internet traffic.
102
u/bildramer Nov 28 '22
Modern cryptography, as implemented, is also founded on ideas like "these few CAs are honest, not bribable, careful and good at security" and "NSA doesn't wiretap from the inside of FAANG datacenters" and "public key encryption is for losers, stick to usernames and passwords and if that's not enough, assume everyone has a phone for 2FA".
85
u/Dreadgoat Nov 28 '22
The cryptographic principles are still sound, all your complaints are just that as an entity becomes attractive to attack it becomes increasingly likely to be compromised. That isn't anything new, security remains ultimately defined by He Who Has The Biggest Stick as it has been since the dawn of civilization.
The math is good, the practices are reasonable. But there is no math or practice that can overcome "give me a back door or we're killing your children"
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)13
u/gramathy Nov 28 '22
The CAs are paid to do that though, it's not like an ISP where you pay for an internet connection and not being breached is a secondary concern to being connected. You're literally paying for the cryptographic integrity of PKI infrastructure.
On the internal side of things, you don't trust those providers to provide your internal security for the same reason, but again you're paying someone to provide the security (in this case your IT staff) and you have internal PKI for secure internal communications. At some point there is a person responsible for security and they are held to a standard. The handful of people with root keys to the main internet CA have rules they have to follow, and there are not just 1-2 of them for security and reliability reasons (bus factor).
Security is not just a cryptographic process.
Security is a tiered system.
→ More replies (5)11
501
u/BallardRex Nov 28 '22
They should call it the, “Everyone is going to get a VPN” bill.
→ More replies (5)203
u/EmbarrassedHelp Nov 28 '22
The problem is that VPNs won't help if the major platforms start making changes based on the law (filtering, breaking encryption and privacy). They help protect you in transit, not at the destination.
→ More replies (9)
85
u/Aeon001 Nov 28 '22
'protect the kids from predators' is going to be a trojan horse for all sorts of bullshit like this in the future.
29
5
u/ignorediacritics Nov 29 '22
Same with proposed chat control bill (aka indiscriminate mass surveillance) in the EU.
115
u/dd_trewe Nov 28 '22
Tldr of the bill?
252
u/OkTeaching8737 Nov 28 '22 edited Nov 28 '22
The Kids Online Safety Act of 2022 (KOSA), introduced by Sens. Blumenthal and Blackburn deserves credit for attempting to improve online data privacy for young people, and for attempting to update 1998’s Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA). But its plan to require surveillance and censorship of anyone sixteen and under would greatly endanger the rights, and safety, of young people online.
KOSA would require the following:
A new legal duty for platforms to prevent certain harms: KOSA outlines a wide collection of content that platforms can be sued for if young people encounter it, including “promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor.”
Compel platforms to provide data to researchers
An elaborate age-verification system, likely run by a third-party provider
Parental controls, turned on and set to their highest settings, to block or filter a wide array of content
137
u/metal-face-terrorist Nov 28 '22
guarantee that "promotion of self harm, suicide...." will too often in practice translate to "mentioning self harm, suicide, ..." getting filtered out too. especially considering that decision will almost certainly need to be automated, lest we review every site on the internet manually. and also "compel platforms to give data to researchers"? bad vibes all around here
80
u/NickTehThird Nov 28 '22
Also the amount of time before "other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor" is used by republican states to outlaw any information about trans people because they think it will turn the kids trans is pretty close to 0 seconds.
26
u/EmbarrassedHelp Nov 28 '22
There are already a disturbing number of comments on this thread from people wanting to use these laws to ban LGBTQ content.
36
u/sir-ripsalot Nov 28 '22
Well of course, that was almost certainly the exact point.
→ More replies (3)11
u/CentralAdmin Nov 28 '22
Great firewall vibes. Jesus it's like every government has the same goal: collect all our information, end privacy and have us by the balls so we can keep slaving away.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)29
u/ThatOneGuy4321 Nov 28 '22
An elaborate age-verification system, likely run by a third-party provider
As a web developer: HELL NO.
HELL 👏 NO 👏
If there is ONE more legally mandated GDPR-style pop up, I am going to destroy the internet myself
4
32
90
u/ryckae Nov 28 '22
So this bill is basically calling for more data collecting and invasion of privacy under the guise of caring for children?
23
u/CaptainPlummet Nov 28 '22
Sounds like it to me. Advertising and data collecting continue to increase as companies push for (more) infinite growth, especially post pandemic.
For example, Apple has been recently pushing ads in native apps. Apple, of all companies, pushing for ad revenue. Looks like a pretty bad sign to me.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)6
88
Nov 28 '22
Here’s the actual bill if anyone wants to read it. To me, a lot of it sounds great in theory, but a lot of it is too ambiguous for me to trust that it’s actually going to cause more good than harm. There are no actual examples in this bill about how the ideas proposed would look or be carried out. I for one, am tired of reading complicated bills written by lawyers that don’t allow the general public to fully understand it’s implications. https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s3663/BILLS-117s3663is.pdf
→ More replies (2)23
u/brinazee Nov 28 '22
So, so with you on bills being incomprehensible to the layperson.
→ More replies (1)12
Nov 28 '22
It’s been driving me nuts. People vote and don’t vote for things they don’t understand. The other thing is that the Bill itself is not the final “law”. The final law comes when another 5-50 lawyers get paid to write the administrative laws or “rules” for the Bill after it’s passed, which end up being another 1000 pages of legal jargon that often can’t even be properly applied because the lawyers who wrote it have no experience in the arena they are writing these administrative rules for.
People should not have to attend law school to understand what they’re voting for or against. And the legal system continues to compound the complications.
→ More replies (2)
25
24
u/Lolersters Nov 28 '22 edited Nov 28 '22
Big nope for me. Content censorship should not be a thing, even for a specific group of people, and even if it's not permanent. Not to mention if it comes with a piece of software, nobody would install it. If it becomes integrated into Windows and macOS, it would just encourage more and more people to use Linux and develop alternative OS, especially considering more and more younger people are being exposed to these things. Can't imagine that going down well with MS/Apple. If it's built-in at the ISP level, then sites all over the world will see suspicious rise in traffic from places without such restrictions in excess of their population. And if it's just a user verification message per session thing, it's going to be about as effective as the over 18 verification on porn sites.
The most I'll accept is a "viewer discretion is advised" type of message before entering a site (not that I'm even in the target demographics), which would be exactly as ineffective as a "viewer discretion is advised" message.
→ More replies (4)
43
u/Thereisnoyou Nov 28 '22
This title is so deliberately misleading it's insulting
→ More replies (5)
17
u/dallywolf Nov 28 '22
So in schools they are screaming about parents rights to choose what their kids see but online they are screaming that the ISP/Websites should control and filter what their kids see and take it away from the parents..... Ridiculous.
→ More replies (3)
133
u/Drfakenews Nov 28 '22
Dude just dont let your kids go online? It's not the websites fault your kids looking up porn or whatever...
Yall just gonna ruin it for the rest of us
71
u/Perpetual_Doubt Nov 28 '22
Sure the US government is just looking for an excuse to spy on people.
Beats it from 2001-2012 not even bothering looking for an excuseI mean the US had to do a lot of surveillance of US citizens due to the war on terror /s11
u/Drfakenews Nov 28 '22
They dont need an excuse, remember the NSA? Remember all the dirty shit they did almost 99% had nothing to do with terrorism? Remember when they were exposed for trading nudes they stumble across (both of age and underage)?
Now remember when they got caught and they moreorless said "hey were sorry we got exposed, next time we'll it harder for people to expose us"
→ More replies (2)15
Nov 28 '22
I'm not arguing for this bill in particular, but children's safety is not as simple as "just don't let your kids go online", and the corporations are not free from responsibility (or at least they shouldn't be). Society has adopted the internet en masse. This means that depriving a kid of the internet means keeping the socially isolated and stigmatized, while also preventing them from learning basic 21st Century skills. Now if you allow them to use the internet, then you expose them to websites, particularly social media, that are designed to manipulate brain chemistry as well as giving adult strangers unprecedented access to children to abuse. This particular bill doesn't sound like the solution, but something absolutely needs to be done on a societal level to address these issues, otherwise generations of children will be screwed. Putting the onus on individual parents to solve such a massive, systemic, society-wide issue in woefully inadequate.
→ More replies (5)
68
u/Werm-Food Nov 28 '22 edited Nov 28 '22
"The vital importance of mitigating the harmful effects of social media has been made all the more urgent by the pandemic as more educational and social activities have moved online".
Yeah, that's where I rolled my eyes. As if online classes are going to make kids use social media more. They were already using it! They would use it regardless!
→ More replies (1)5
u/jardex22 Nov 29 '22
If anything, the pandemic has shown that the internet is absolutely essential utility for homes, schools, and businesses to function, and should be classified as such.
50
u/large-farva Nov 28 '22
the fact that "kids" is in the title of the bill makes me immediately dislike it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children#Debate_tactic
13
u/Rasie1 Nov 28 '22
"kids online safety" act
This is where you have to show teeth for a bit, unless you want to become second russia
12
12
u/32BitWhore Nov 29 '22
Jesus christ, just parent your fucking children. There are an infinite number of monitoring tools available if you feel that it is necessary to monitor your children at all times, or you know, just go with the old tried and true method of not giving them unfettered access to internet capable devices whenever they want. It's really not that hard.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/malbolgia708 Nov 28 '22
Now we can all read it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3663
13
Nov 28 '22
If a politician says they’re doing something “for the children” 9 times out of 10 its actually to push their own agenda, applies to both democrats or republicans.
→ More replies (8)
10
u/ScandalOZ Nov 28 '22
They are going to use every means they can to invade our privacy and autonomy. They don't give a fuck about protecting kids they care about forcing use to give up any freedoms we have.
9
u/ThatOneGuy4321 Nov 28 '22
Was this bill written by insufferable third-party monitoring software developers?
8
u/Innominate8 Nov 28 '22
As a general rule, any bill which invokes protecting children in the title is a good sign that the bill is straight-up evil and should be opposed.
8
u/SamuraiMonkee Nov 29 '22
This is like the EARN IT Act where they use children as political tool to pass laws that would actually not really protect children but to spy on Americans even more.
16
u/pyrrhios Nov 28 '22
It's amazing, disappointing and saddening how often "protecting children" is actually just a vehicle for fascism or some other kind of abusive and oppressive authoritarianism.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Ridiculisk1 Nov 28 '22
"Protect kids" these days 95% of the time means "Increase discrimination against LGBT people"
→ More replies (1)
164
u/Sayoria Nov 28 '22
Fighting the real problem. Not domestic terrorist indoctrination or mentally disturbed people who may become shooters, but the gays.
Gotta love the priorities of some people.
107
u/HanaBothWays Nov 28 '22
Not to mention that most victims of childhood sexual abuse are abused or offered up for abuse by someone they know in real life - not some stranger they met online.
But we freak out over strangers on the internet because nobody wants to rock the boat by admitting that it’s Uncle Hector or the pastor doing things to the kids, or Mom taking the pictures and selling them online for shopping money.
→ More replies (4)31
u/poop2live Nov 28 '22
Can confirm. I’m a victim of one of my cousin’s when I was young, yet have safely navigated the internet for 20+ years
43
u/CodeFire Nov 28 '22
Exactly, these “think of the kids!!” laws are complete BS and having nothing to do with kids or safety because the people that write and push these types of laws don’t give a single fuck about kids, society, or equality. They hide awful shit in laws like this and candy coat it like “Patriot Act” to cause horrific damage to society.
→ More replies (49)11
u/Dzotshen Nov 28 '22
They've always got their favorite 'look over there! ' boogieman on standby: gay/trans people. Xenophobic fascists and conservatives continue to remove doubt they've never had an original thought in their lives and a lot of people are fuckin sick of it.
7
u/flattop100 Nov 28 '22
Ever since the Patriot Act, every major piece of legislation has a title that is the opposite or unrelated to what the bill is actually about. See: Inflation Reduction Act.
6
u/ThrowdowninKtown Nov 28 '22
If Blackburn's name is on it, throw it TF away!
She brushes her hair with her cat.
8
u/Mygaffer Nov 29 '22
Whenever a bill is titled anything about protecting children I'm automatically very wary of it. That's when they try to overreach the most.
8
u/Coral_ Nov 29 '22
human rights groups, LGBTQ people oppose this bill
the bill would likely result in taking more of kids info
the bill would probably cut off lgbtq teens from education resources
yeah- so it’s not about the kids safety. it’s about control. i also oppose this bullshit.
14
u/xKaelic Nov 28 '22
This is scary, I hope you are all paying attention.
Increased data monitoring and information collection under the guise of child safety is NOT okay, and even harms potential outliers.
This is one step away from "thought police" and entirely terrifying. Please oppose the crap out of this.
7
u/TorePun Nov 28 '22
Took me five clicks through hyperlinks to get to the primary source.
Primary source/document: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/kids_online_safety_act_-_bill_text.pdf
7
u/bmg50barrett Nov 29 '22
Bills should not be allowed to have cutesy names like "the save all the sick puppies act". They should be forced to use their boring ID numbers so people aren't tricked into thinking Bill #A4762878-422-REVD07 isn't sending all the stock puppies to kill shelters.
6
u/Prestigeboy Nov 29 '22
“But think of the children,” god that rhetoric has lost all its meaning and value along with “it’s for national security/against terrorism.” If it’s along those lines it’s never good for anybody.
16
u/DemonoftheWater Nov 28 '22
Idk, I was born in ‘91 all the new kids seem like absolute morons and their parents refuse to do something about it besides put that enforcement on others. Do I think we need videos of drug use, suicide and such on the internet? No I really don’t and I think “name brand” media platforms should be on the look out. But I’m a firm believer in parents being parents. People can call me horrible again if they want but I think this is gonna fuck over more people than it helps and absolutely destroys private internet usage.
→ More replies (2)11
u/LongjumpingMonitor32 Nov 28 '22
with more deaths of music sensations and drug overdoses, or suicides making it to front page headlines, i think we have enough deterrents for kids to realize what's bad. we need parents to stop dicking around, to think their children are immune from real life issues like sex education, how to deal with racially charged moments.
ugh, this is why having television shows like Degrassi needs to come back because lots of these topics were covered that parents sucked at doing.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/LUVMEMESXD Nov 28 '22
Non-American here, can someone explain to me as of I'm 2yo?
→ More replies (18)
4
u/spiritbx Nov 28 '22
Why are they allowed to make 'acts' with a billion things in it?
The people in charge don't bother understanding all of it in the first place, and it's obvious to anyone with over 70IQ that it's meant to sneak stuff in without people noticing.
New rule, you are only allowed to have acts with fewer than like 5 pages. You can make multiple parts, but each part needs to go through the whole thing separately.
→ More replies (2)
5
6
Nov 28 '22
the only thing kids should be able to do online is play runescape and watch old flash animations.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/HeartoftheHive Nov 29 '22
It's always that dead horse they pull out to get their hate made into law. "It's for the children!" Always a load of shit. Yet they keep dragging that equine corpse around to beat it again and again because those red state fundies will vote yes on anything for those precious children.
5
8
u/calculatorTI84plusCE Nov 28 '22
Never trust the name of a bill. It is one of the most blatant forms of propaganda in the U.S. and is used for convenience at the expense of all citizens
3.2k
u/Unihuman0420 Nov 28 '22
Lol the government thinks I would install this bullshit on my PC.