- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Kids Online Safety Act gains enough supporters to pass the Senate::The bill would create a duty of care for tech platforms to protect child and teen users.
You must log in or register to comment.
Once again, a bad thing disguised in a “protect the children” narrative.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/dont-fall-latest-changes-dangerous-kids-online-safety-act
That’s RIGHT! There’s NOTHING we can do about Guns because Laws don’t Work but also we NEED to CONTROL the Internet and make sure only POSITIVE THINGS about the US Government are said so we can Protect The Children!
…Or maybe they’re constitutional violations and we shouldn’t do either through legislation or through force of law?
How to protect children in the US
- Enable school shootings so kids can get shot
- Ban sex education to make teen moms and increase rape
- Ban abortion to increase poverty
- Mandate ID uploads for certain websites so kids have to ask older siblings (or even sketchier websites) to get porn
Land of the free, unless it’s not profitable, I guess?
Yeah right. Because senators who rally against gun safety laws and are generally OK with kids being shot at school are so concerned about safety.
How about we get parents to actually give a shit about what their kids do online.
If a parent would give their kids blank plane tickets to anywhere in the world, and the kids get hurt in another country. Would we blame the plane pilot, the airship company or the parents? Cause sending your kids on the internet alone is the exact same ! It should always be the parents who care for their kids to control and limit their exposure to internet not society as a whole.
That was a very good analogy.
I think you’re saying that we should be giving parents the tools to parent their kids and the accountability to take responsibility when their parenting affects others negatively.
I’ve been saying this for years.
Say goodbye to the small remaining amount of privacy we have. This will be the catalyst to shove LGBTQ+ back into the closets and it will be praised by voters as progress for protecting children and having no clue what the bill actually does
“Protect the children” is seemingly only used to encroach more and more in our personal lives. The last time it was used honestly was when we stopped making kids work in the mines.
“Land of the free”
“But not that. Or that. Actually here’s a list”
How will this age verify actually work? Sure the big sites like Facebook might have to follow this law. But won’t this just push kids to use less reputable sites or sites based outside of the US that don’t have to follow US law?
Data brokers. That’s how this is going to work. Any “privacy” law that empowers, incentivizes and encourages data brokers has fundamentally failed out of the gate
We must erode your privacy in order to protect it. You know, for the children.
In the current draft, age verification is not required. The bill would require a study on the subject to be submitted with 1 year. The study would evaluate the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level. Definitely something to be fought every step of the way.
Probably you have to upload image of your ID… which stops absolutely nothing because you can just AI generate one. All the while it actually hurts normal people since when facebook gets hacked next, the hacker now has all your ID information alongside the other stuff they stole.
They were able to fuck up the web partially with SESTA/FOSTA.
Of course they’re going to keep doing it. The internet is too much of a threat to the plutocracy by leaking when they do evil shit for their ill gotten gains.
They want to make the internet nothing but Amazon and Hulu.
I can’t believe how many people I’ve seen on here advocate for this kind of horse shit.
So does this apply to the fediverse as well ? If so, so long lemmings.
I believe, having just CTRL-Fed through the text, as it is now, that the Fediverse would be exempt. Two caveats: 1) I may have missed something while skimming through and there are some other clauses that apply. 2) This may have a special legal meaning of which I am not aware. And, of course, this is not final.
A) IN GENERAL.—The term “covered platform” means an online platform, online video game, messaging application, or video streaming service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.
(B) EXCEPTIONS.—The term “covered platform” does not include—
[…]
(ii) an organization not organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members;
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), also announced new changes to the text of the legislation, which seem aimed at addressing concerns that the bill would allow politicians and law enforcement to censor content online.
Vance (R-OH), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Laphonza Butler (D-CA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Angus King (I-ME), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND).
The office pointed to a letter dated Thursday from groups including GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, and The Trevor Project stating they would not oppose the new version of the bill if it moves forward.
“The considerable changes that you have proposed to KOSA in the draft released on February 15th, 2024, significantly mitigate the risk of it being misused to suppress LGBTQ+ resources or stifle young people’s access to online communities,” the groups wrote.
The latest version of the text includes new language to make clear that video games don’t need to abruptly interrupt natural gameplay in order to implement the required safeguards, among other assurances for the industry.
Fight for the Future was “glad to see the attorney general enforcement narrowed” and agrees the change “will somewhat reduce the immediate likelihood of KOSA being weaponized by politically motivated AGs to target content that they don’t like.”
The original article contains 926 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
