this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
878 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

58142 readers
4678 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

'Kids Online Safety Act' will deliberately target trans content, senator admits.::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 88 points 1 year ago (9 children)

"The bill – endorsed by president Joe Biden..."

Why in the world would Biden support this Heritage foundation garbage?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

'Kids Online Safety Act' will deliberately target trans content, senator admits

He's a granddad. We shouldn't have granddads who can't work a remote be president. I assume he can't work a remote.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Set maximum age for presidency at 25.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago

This IS Biden. He's always been a pretty bad human person. The only silver lining is that he's been better than most recently. He's a center-right politician just like most Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Are you starting to see the cracks in the foundation? Are you starting to see how the game is played?

[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is actually a fantastic example of typical politics, but not in the way you're imagining. It's a classic poison pill. Write a bill with something good (protecting children's privacy online, which I think we'd all agree is good) and then put something unpalatable into it (transphobia and homophobia).

Someone votes for it, "Why do you hate LGBT people?" Someone votes against it, "Why don't you want children to have stronger privacy laws on the Internet?"

It's exhausting and a lose-lose. That said, I prefer if they don't vote for it and take heat for "being anti privacy". You don't negotiate with people's rights.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Is it protecting children? Claims need evidence and rules need tests. Until we do that its fear-based, exploitable control for the sake of control.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Government doesn't run on the scientific method, sadly.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's the problem with legislation like this. You'll have proponents claim it protects children without actually explaining how.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Please explain in detail how this bill does a single good thing for children.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Section 3a of the bill is the part that would be used to target LGBTQ content.

Sections 4 talks about adding better parental controls which would give general statistics about what their kids are doing online, without parents being able to see/helicopter in on exaxrlt what their kids were looking at. It also would force sites to give children safe defaults when they create a profile, including the ability to disable personalized recommendations, placing limitations on dark patterns designed to manipulate children to stay on platforms for longer, making their information private by default, and limiting others' ability to find and message them without the consent of children. Notably, these settings would all be optional, but enabled by default for children/users suspected to be children.

I think the regulations described in section 4 would mostly be good things. They're the types of settings that I'd prefer to use on my online accounts, at least. However, the bad outweighs the good here, and the content in section 3a is completely unacceptable.

Funnily enough, I had to read through the bill twice, and only caught on to how bad section 3a was on my second time reading it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I think the regulations described in section 4 would mostly be good things. They’re the types of settings that I’d prefer to use on my online accounts, at least.

Then put them on your accounts. Any regulation in this area is unacceptable.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I don't know that it does. If bills and the discourse around them were actually about the stated topic, it would be revolutionary to politics.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only cracks here is that the senate are all a bunch of olds who don't understand the internet.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

This tbh...

They fear what thy don't understand...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Sure they do, it is a series of tubes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually no, and furthermore I reject your ‘both sides’ rhetoric wholesale.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I legitimately can't fucking stand idiots like you.

You can agree with the overall or the majority of policy decisions of a political party while still criticizing their individual decisions as people. To think your political party is somehow 'above it' or morally just through and through is being willfully ignorant. It's a level of mental gymnastics that's outright absurd.

Again, you can still vote for these people and still believe doing so increases the quality of life. And yes, we can make a distinction that one party isn't just the 'lesser of two evils'.

But holy fuck, seriously. Both sides voted to invade the middle east, both sides vote to increase the military budget, both sides vote to increase their own congressional benefits, and both sides play the game where you need to vote on someone's bill to get them to vote on yours, both sides have issues with the legal loop holes of bribery, both sides take lobbiest money, etc.

Just because one is clearly better than the other doesn't remove them from criticism and doesn't deny the fact that they are still politicians doing political shit.

Unstick your head from your ass, ffs

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Are you not at all familiar with the man and his political history?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Because he is an old senile man

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

He's desperate to look bipartisan

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Biden has hurt blacks more than any larper nazi today.