815

'Kids Online Safety Act' will deliberately target trans content, senator admits. (www.thepinknews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 170 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 65 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 26 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.

[-] arefx@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

Blonde and blue eyes only?

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 26 points 1 year ago

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

[-] sock@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

huge props to people that didnt blow their brains out at first opportunity going into camps

idk how i would really react but death sounds a lot nicer than concentration camps

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Well SCOTUS went ahead and let them have their anti-abortion laws, what else are they going to get their people distracted by? It was always going to be a never ending harassment of "others" leading to the spiral down into hell, SCOTUS just broke the seal for them to do it legally.

[-] weew@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)

[-] VampyreOfNazareth@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago

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

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

[-] Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

'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.

[-] asteroidnova@lemmy.ml 35 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.

[-] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago

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

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 24 points 1 year ago

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

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 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)

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] primbin@lemmy.one 8 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 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.

[-] Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

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

[-] asunaspersonalasst@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This tbh...

They fear what thy don't understand...

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

$$$$$$$$$$

[-] Gravel8@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

Because he is an old senile man

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago

"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

[-] buddhabound@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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

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

[-] Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] GyozaPower@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

Or children starving because they have to pay for shitty food at school, or children starving and having a bad life because their parents can't afford to pay for more even if they already work, or children at orphanages...

Yeah, much like with forbidding abortion (but then never caring whether the no longer-aborted child will have a proper home to live), children are just a political tool.

[-] the_crab_man@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

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 (1 replies)

[-] xc2215x@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Not a surprise. That is the intention.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] glacier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

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

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] BarterClub@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago

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

[-] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 17 points 1 year ago

How about we go after the real threat, churches.

[-] mimichuu_@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

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

[-] SirStumps@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

This woman is the literal devil...

[-] SouthEndSunset@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Its not a bug, its a feature.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023

815 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

58311 readers

5359 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS