this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
490 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
59292 readers
4815 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Article doesn't say why republicans opposed it, but I guess this is one of those "broken clock" moments where they were accidentally right but for the wrong reasons.
They probably opposed the idea of safe kids, given the rest of the platform. That, or there was lobbying money.
Considering the tech industry would need to use more money to enforce the law, it would be cheaper to just buy out politicians.
Their official line is based in fears of surveillance and government overreach. My state senator Mike Lee was one of them, must have been a cold day in Hell or something.
Please don’t perpetuate “think of the children” nonsense.
I’m not, it’s the name. The joke was that they saw the concept of safe kids in the Kids Online Safety Act and never read further.
And you making fun of that is just perpetuating the problem of bullshit law names like “protect the children” or “patriot act” or “freedom blah blah safety blah blah.”
I don’t think it does in this context. Not a single person reading this thinks that this was a good bill, whereas in a Facebook comment section, that might be different.
Do you know what kosa stands for?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and go with "Can't give Democrats anything that looks like a conservative win" for $500 Alex.
That and good old reactive contrarianism. Dems say yes, we say no.
Then why did they support it in the Senate?
Cause Senators are generally less reactionary than the house. They can usually afford to play a long game that House members can't.
Yeh tbh not sure why users here are opposed to KOSA.
The condensed version is that it creates a lot of avenues for a very loose definition of "keeping kids safe" that could easily include "information about dealing with bigoted family" being called "dangerous" at the discretion of an executive branch appointee who thinks that lgbtq identity is "unsafe".
It also provides more avenues for the government to remove otherwise legal speech from the Internet entirely on the grounds that they have asserted that it's "bad for children".
This is literally the long running joke about how you pass draconian laws, and would only be made more on the nose if it was "keeping patriotic kids online safe for the future tax cuts of American freedom"
In general, the government should not be able to silence speech that isn't immediately and unambiguously harmful.
It also is written vaguely enough to justify attempts to block VPN access and other forms of anonymous media consumption. Basically under the guise that an anonymous user -could- be a child, so they need to be deanonymized and tracked.
Well the text does very specifically state it would trigger investigation of things that have caused harm, but yeah it's not worth the risk if the FTC decides what harm is.
Ripe, ripe, RIPE for abuse.
Because I think the government should fundamentally not be in the business of telling us on the Internet what we can talk about, how we have to design our websites, etc etc.
https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
Alright but if an entity, for example, teaches children about self harm for pleasure or gambling then that entity should be punishable, imo.
But another user makes a great argument that the FTC could decide anything they want is the definition of harm, which could include LGBT+ and therefor KOSA isn't worth the risks.
Read the article
You can't go looking for logic in hate
The reason is obvious, the Democrats wanted it to pass.