this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
558 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59204 readers
3042 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
558
Politicians Are Using Kids As Props To Pass Terrible, Harmful Legislation. Don’t Let Them Get Away With It (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Politicians Are Using Kids As Props To Pass Terrible, Harmful Legislation. Don’t Let Them Get Away With It::Amidst all of the attention paid to last week’s Senate hearing on child safety online, it remains stunning just how little time was actually spent on how to help children online. Instead, we saw pure theatrical nonsense, with Senators insisting (falsely) that these five tech CEOs could magically stop bad things from happening to kids,…

all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) continues to march through the halls of Congress as though it’s the best thing since sliced bread, even though one of the co-creators of this bill clearly stated that her intention is to protect children from “the transgender” and to prevent “indoctrination” from the LGBT community.

Historically, "protecting children" was always about oppressing LGBT people and even women. Protecting kids from turning gay or becoming cross-dressers. I'm sure it seems foolish to anyone here, but if you believe that being gay is a choice, it makes sense.

Comstock Laws, anyone?

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It makes me wonder if these anti-porn laws are happening because queer people seem to be more likely to watch porn[1], and because of that, conservatives are looking at it as a causal thing rather than a correlative thing. If porn does help with getting to terms with your sexuality, then these laws should be worrying to the queer community. What conservatives may be doing here is trying to statistically decrease the amount of queer people in society, as getting rid of porn may reduce the amount of people who are aware of their own bisexuality, and those people may never engage with and/or have as much empathy for the queer community as a result.

[1] https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/02/28/more-porn-watch-more-likely-bisexual/

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

I think it’s more because both fall into their category of sexual immorality. They consider both to be psychosexual disorders that people develop. And while they do think they’re related they think they’re related in that way, much like how depression and substance abuse disorders are related. And yeah it’s similar in their minds to “rapid onset gender dysphoria” which is actually just parents not noticing that their kid was struggling with dysphoria until they found support that helped them process it and come out

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 37 points 9 months ago (1 children)

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is water at the bottom of the ocean

[–] chalupapocalypse@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

More proof that kids ruin everything

ISPs taking away newsgroups

Pornhub deleting everything

Craigslist personals going bye bye

[–] MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ISPs taking away newsgroups?

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They took them away many years ago.

[–] Codilingus@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I still use Newsgroups for sailing the digital seas. 🤷‍♂️

[–] Murdoc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

I believe what they are referring to is that access to them is no longer included in your isp package like email is, and requires additional payment, usually to a different company.

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your ISPs, or do you pay for a third party like TweakNews or UsenetExpress?

[–] Codilingus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I pay for one. I wasn't aware ISPs ever provided them. TIL. I thought the comment meant they blocked usenets you pay for.

[–] tabularasa@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah, believe it or not they would come free from your ISP, back in the day. Those were the days.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

They are trying to shove us back in the closets like they've done several times throughout history, and it's bipartisan.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

In other news Scientists have definitively determined there's a 98.3% chance of getting wet if you jump into the ocean.

I don't like the tech bro CEOs but this is just conservatives using kids for the 1,864,456th time to push authoritarian shit.

[–] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

It's almost like you need some of that damn Freeze Peach y'all are complaining so much about.

This is the reason it has to be non-negotiable. Yes, it's expensive, in terms of a lot of people saying stuff you don't want them to say. But in return, when people try to pull this shit, you get to laugh in their face and tell 'em go fuck themselves right in their ear.

And I don't just mean the first-amendment narrow legal definition stuff in the US. I mean the much broader political principle that speech should not be restricted except in commission of a crime.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Can people stop using politicians and simply write Republicans?

Not doing that is a huge part of the problem... Democrats are the only ones trying to stop it. Even when we have a few barely dems that are just Republicans in all but name.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Look up the 1994 Crime Bill. Democrats are absolutely capable of supporting bad faith stuff for the protection of children.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

1994 as in three decades ago? Two generations? What's next, corrupt Illinois governors lol?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Okay than check out SOPA and PIPA. Both of which were only stopped by massive online protests and write in campaigns. I'm not seeing whole websites running Boycott KOSA banners this time either so...

And yes both SOPA and PIPA used the "protecting children" argument.

I can keep going. This is not a partisan problem.