‘Kids Online Safety Act’ will deliberately target trans content, senator admits.::undefined
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.
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.
Fascism requires an “other” to function. Once one “other” is a destroyed there will always be another one to take it’s place.
Blonde and blue eyes only?
As long as they don’t have any lefty thoughts. Don’t forget that the Nazis also put unionists, socialists and communists in camps.
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
Same. I dont do very well being hungry…and that would be the least of my worries really.
Interesting how that never gets talked about…
You mean the fact that the biggest initial source of support the Nazis got was from the emerging business class who were scared of the rising influence of labor unions? Can’t imagine why that gets pushed under the bed.
Not like we had that nearly happen here in the US or anything though. Just don’t look into the Business Plot or that many of the Jan 6thers turned out to be small business tyrants…
Just remember that the most dangerous Nazis aren’t the skinheads on the corner but the ones on Wall Street.
Spot on.
Working backwards, we could reasonably expect Italian, Irish, and Polish people. Discrimination really isn’t about the color of your skin if history is anything to go off of.
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.
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.
True. The dumbification of America has been going on for years.
It’s not about colour anymore, it’s the return of classism.
the return of classism.
The return? It never left.
The bill – endorsed by president Joe Biden – aims to put in place…
“The bill – endorsed by president Joe Biden…”
Why in the world would Biden support this Heritage foundation garbage?
‘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.
Set maximum age for presidency at 25.
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.
Are you starting to see the cracks in the foundation? Are you starting to see how the game is played?
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.
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.
Government doesn’t run on the scientific method, sadly.
Yeah that’s the problem with legislation like this. You’ll have proponents claim it protects children without actually explaining how.
Sometimes we actually need to act before knowing everything. What we know for a fact currently is that the number of children who think they are trans or non-binary is in a sharp rise in many countries in the west. There are guesses why this is: transactivists like to say that LBTQ+ is now accepted so these people dare to come out. The other side cite e.g. social contagion. All this is happening only in the west, somehow. If this is caused by something that is reversible, then that should be probably tried out.
If their transness is completely internal, then nothing external will affect it. If not, they might be “cured” in some sense. Being trans is utilistically negative, after all – it doesn’t make life exactly easier or better. So if its onset can be genuinely prevented, that would be a net positive for the individual.
Dunno if any of this justifies general censorship, probably not, but I think it’s complete madness that children are allowed to see everything there is to see in the internet. I think that will be quoted as one of the greatest mistakes of this century. I’m not at all surprised that their mental health is in a sustained nose dive.
Please explain in detail how this bill does a single good thing for 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.
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.
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.
The only cracks here is that the senate are all a bunch of olds who don’t understand the internet.
This tbh…
They fear what thy don’t understand…
deleted by creator
Actually no, and furthermore I reject your ‘both sides’ rhetoric wholesale.
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
Dude you are basically Hyde from That 70s Show riffing after a joint trying to dunk on “The Man”. You never have to dog far with losers like you to find the conspiracy theories and alternative facts and we all know form there it’s a Misty mountain hop to alt right malarkey.
Go sell crazy somewhere else.
Anyone that doesn’t support the party is an evil right wing monster and must be destroyed by any means!
You’re the crazy and dangerous one here
Anyone asserting that the party who dog-whsitles Nazis to threaten democracy is ‘just like all the others’ is a dangerous idiot. At best.
You are one of the dumbest people I have ever seen, ever. Your reading comprehension is so limited, I’m surprised you were even able to make an account here.
That’s not what they said though
$$$$$$$$$$
Are you not at all familiar with the man and his political history?
Because he is an old senile man
He’s desperate to look bipartisan
Biden has hurt blacks more than any larper nazi today.
Then again, Pinknews isn’t exactly a impartial source itself either, is it?
“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
…and my mind is stronger than a child’s…
It’s not though. It really, really isn’t.
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.
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.
It should be the parents’ job to regulate what kind of content their children consume on the internet, not the government’s.
Parents aren’t generally capable of that, I’ve learned.
That’s good because children are much smarter than government and their parents when it comes to internet.
I work with kids and that’s much less true than you would think lmao.
I think it is now thanks to how devices and operating systems have evolved. But growing up in the era where internet and home computers were relatively ubiquitous, but clunky and slow, meant that most Gen Y were pretty good with them IMO.
Who you work as? Maybe sampling bias.
Who I work as? If only being a child was a profession lmao
I work with kids
Go easy, English isn’t their first language.
That may have been true 20 years ago, but it’s not necessarily true now. Young millennials had unbridled access to the internet. Most of us grew up using desktop PC and knew their intricacies for the most part. Hell, we had to use CSS and HTML for MySpace.
The current generation has always had relatively limited access to the internet, and most have used it off of phones or tablets their whole lives.
It’s a spectrum in most cases anyway. The average person in any generation is computer illiterate.
The current generation has always had relatively limited access to the internet, and most have used it off of phones or tablets their whole lives.
Making it harder for users to install any program of their choice only adds fuel to the fire. Banning something on the internet adds oxidizer. Thanks to my stupid govenment of militant pensioners, I learned English to an extent enough for writing this comment and how to use tor.
The average person in any generation is computer illiterate.
Probably because standards of literacy change. Same happend with electricity.
We should protect the children, lets start with the Catholic Church.
To protect kids from gay priests who are molesting them?
Heavens, no. To find a way to extract some monetary value out of that.
and the child mutilating church
This isn’t about protecting kids it’s about banning LGBT persons from the internet.
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.
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.
Oh absolutely and they’ll likely try to punish those who try to save them
Not a surprise. That is the intention.
How about we go after the real threat, churches.
Send your message to Congress. Here is a simple way to do so. https://resist.bot/petitions/PCCXRJ
Why is it always the Save The Children Act and not the Erradicate Trans People Act?
Kind of like Citizens United, has a better ring than “Politician pay offs”.
We need to harm the children to help the children don’t you understand?!!?!?!
Yeah the 1st amendment has gone out the window here. (on the other hand, why are they pushing the lgtbtq movement on kids. Kids aren’t smart at all and won’t understand the deeper meaning…)
Its not a bug, its a feature.
This woman is the literal devil…
