Fascists always use "protecting children" as the rationale for implementing mechanisms of social control. Their willingness to allow school shootings shows that they really don't care about protecting children at all.
Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Ah yes.. forever and again, the siren song of children being used as an excuse for draconian, rights eroding legislation.. its amazing how much responsibility parents have shirked to the state as they replace babysitters with cellphones and tablets.
I’m shocked that the first openly gay senator Tammy Baldwin is a co-sponsor for the bill. You bet I’m writing her.
Not really surprising to me. Gay (and now trans) people have long been accused of grooming and/or queerifying children
The first openly gay senator is probably hyper-aware of this, and I'd guess is probably very hawkish on anything protecting children
The other aspect is congressmen don't understand shit outside (sometimes) politics or the law. On its surface, this has a very compelling description - hold websites responsible if they let children access NSFW content.
It's not until you ask how (interpreted by the community as providing identifiable information to "prove" your age) that the first flaw comes up - this provides a way to collect data on online use, as social media is considered potentially NSFW by the nature of user submission
Then you get to the things most people without a technical background wouldn't see
The second flaw - companies are terrible at securing data. Get ready for every scammer under the sun to be able to find your ID numbers.
The third, this won't work. As a young teen, I blazed past parental controls, because there's a ton of porn out there and there's no way to hold back someone determined to find it. If you want this to work, we need to make a child Internet of known safe content and parental controls to keep you there... But just like finding or stealing a Playboy, the fact it exists means kids are going to be stealing passwords or IDs and probably sharing them. If we instead had sites declare content ratings and locked down at the device level, they need to go through a lot of work or get a secret device - it would give parents powerful tools to actually enforce this through Apple, Google, or Microsoft accounts
And finally, this won't work because it's inconvenient. Make password requirements too strict, and users write them down. Make content moderation too strict, and people will find shortcuts. People will find ways around this that will likely both end up in the hands of children, but also probably make everyone less safe
I don't know how American voters can stand for this, how can you re-elect people who cause your children to get shot in schools and believe the same people have set out to protect them with things like these?
A third or so of the country believes the right wing propaganda machine that has been churning for decades.
For everyone else, we're constantly offered a choice between a center-right neoliberal, or an outright fascist. We're just voting for how fast the country falls.
More of them “freedoms” that you yanks are always going on about?
How do I check if my senator has signed? Or is that not public information
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
here's the list of cosponsors ... if they're there, then they're certainly supporting it. It's worth contacting them in any case; they'll often send you a form reply saying their position on the bill.
God in a campaign defined by hilarious self inflicted pratt falls I can't believe they slapped Tim Karnes dumbass into Hillary vp slot.
And then tried to whitewash him as "your boring uncle (please don't look into any of his actual policy positions)"
I don't know if I'm in the right here but I'm practically at the point where I'm just like fuck it, let them ruin the internet.
I want to hear them scream when because of their own actions they have tanked the companies that their retirements are depending on.
Let's see how fast they can fix shit when they have 35 million angry retirees that hold 78% of the wealth in the country mad at them and telling them to fix it.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I would appreciate governments, especially the American government, refraining from passing laws "for the children". They never are. They never work. They are a scam that gives the appearance of being beneficial to all while only benefiting a few. They accomplish nothing the scam indicates it will and instead turns out to be another overreach of government power.
No more "for the children" nonsense from any government - it's not about them and you know it.
You want to pass something for the good of the children? GET RID OF THE GODDAM GUNS.
Shit, third spaces and public squares would also still be a lot more of a thing if anyone cared about the children. The situation with hostile architecture just makes things worse for everyone. People out there trying to invent ultrasonic devices meant to deter teenagers from hanging around and shit.
I ended up a terminally online washout in part because there was fuck all to do aside from sitting around the house and going to school when I was a kid. That was 20 years ago. I can't imagine the situation is much better these days.