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

Technology

59030 readers
4914 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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 175 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Of course it will. Then once they have all the trans people rounded up they’ll target the gays, then the blacks, the mexicans, and so on and so forth until everyone’s in camps that isn’t white.

Republican supporters won’t wake up to this until they start coming after the stupid and obese.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You're not safe even if you're white. If nothing else they'll target people who like the color blue just to keep some "enemy" in their sights.

White people are just further down the list of easy targets. At that point they'll start by hair color and nitpick their way down from there.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

Fascism requires an "other" to function. Once one "other" is a destroyed there will always be another one to take it's place.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blonde and blue eyes only?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (5 children)

As long as they don't have any lefty thoughts. Don't forget that the Nazis also put unionists, socialists and communists in camps.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they'll never target the stupid, those are the people who will support them no matter what. They're already trying to demonize intelligence and education.

the bar for what counts as stupid enough will continue to lower, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not about colour anymore, it’s the return of classism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [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 (14 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 (5 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [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...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Trans porn must be curropting children because it's all I watch now and my mind is way stronger than a child's." -Marsha Blackburn

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

...and my mind is stronger than a child's...

It's not though. It really, really isn't.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, at this stage you can tell that by the name.

These deplorables love children so much that they don’t even bat an eye at using child sexual abuse as a political tool while simultaneously turning a blind eye to 300,000 children raped by clergy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We should protect the children, lets start with the Catholic Church.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To protect kids from gay priests who are molesting them?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (10 children)

It should be the parents' job to regulate what kind of content their children consume on the internet, not the government's.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

This isn't about protecting kids it's about banning LGBT persons from the internet.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep exactly as we all knew.

She wants to confine children like I was to the years of confusion and alienation I had to go through. That’s cruel. I should not have had to feel so alone and nobody else should either.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is more than just cruel. It is abusive and genocidal. LGBT youth will die because of this law and the countless others being passed in certain states.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Oh absolutely and they’ll likely try to punish those who try to save them

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

Not a surprise. That is the intention.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is it always the Save The Children Act and not the Erradicate Trans People Act?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Kind of like Citizens United, has a better ring than "Politician pay offs".

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

How about we go after the real threat, churches.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Send your message to Congress. Here is a simple way to do so. https://resist.bot/petitions/PCCXRJ

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need to harm the children to help the children don't you understand?!!?!?!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Its not a bug, its a feature.

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

This woman is the literal devil...

load more comments
view more: next ›