cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/2628014

Charlie Jane Anders discusses KOSA (the Kids Online Safety Act).

If you’re in the US, https://www.stopkosa.com/ makes it easy to contact your Senators and ask them to oppose KOSA.

"A new bill called the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, is sailing towards passage in the Senate with bipartisa>n support. Among other things, this bill would give the attorney general of every state, including red states, the right to sue Internet platforms if they allow any content that is deemed harmful to minors. This clause is so vaguely defined that attorneys general can absolutely claim that queer content violates it — and they don’t even need to win these lawsuits in order to prevail. They might not even need to file a lawsuit, in fact. The mere threat of an expensive, grueling legal battle will be enough to make almost every Internet platform begin to scrub anything related to queer people.

The right wing Heritage Foundation has already stated publicly that the GOP will use this provision to remove any discussions of trans or queer lives from the Internet. They’re salivating over the prospect.

And yep, I did say this bill has bipartisan support. Many Democrats have already signed on as co-sponsors. And President Joe Biden has urged lawmakers to pass this bill in the strongest possible terms."

  • Objectionist
    link
    English
    391 year ago

    we are fuckin fuckity fucked holy

    this is honestly scary

    • @Manifish_Destiny
      link
      51 year ago

      they’ll be in a lot of physical danger if we can’t occupy ourselves on the Internet.

  • speck
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    Goddamn it’s tiring, this incessant race to the bottom

    • polygon
      link
      fedilink
      311 year ago

      The bill has bipartisan support. Who do you vote for when both sides are in on it?

        • @samus12345
          link
          English
          61 year ago

          In theory, yes. In practice, the 2 main political parties have too much power to allow anyone outside their approval to win.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            51 year ago

            The parties don’t even have to take a vote before nominating a candidate, they don’t even need to hold primaries. In fact Republicans are trying to rewrite the laws/rules/guidelines whatever in a few of their states.

            The former DNC chair has said something to the effect that she wouldn’t have allowed Sanders to get nominated even if he got the votes.

        • 🔍🦘🛎
          link
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Honestly no. In 2016 Burnie had momentum and growing support. He won my state’s primary. The media just refused to talk about him, often just flat out ignoring he was a candidate. Instead they pushed Hilary hard.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        It’s really disheartening to see this. But it’s still worth voting, because only if Republicans have power can they use this to remove all evidence of LGBTQ+ people from the internet, and only Republicans want to use it this way.

    • @Coreidan
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      Vote for the rich! They always have poor people’s best interests in mind. The solution to our problems is more rich people. Surely they won’t fuck us. Why would they ever do that?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    111 year ago

    Blech, I’m visiting the states right now and I’m planning to get out of here again because it’s so conservative, and all my friends here are like: “What are you talking about? This country is so progressive.” Pppffff, this country is progressive in the way new coke was progressive. Nothing much changed, the things that did change were worse, and then they walked it back.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Okay, I looked it up, coke had quietly changed sugar to corn syrup before introducing new coke and then when they went back to Coke classic, they just kept using corn syrup instead of real sugar. So classic Coke isn’t actually classic coke it was retro branded newer coke.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I can’t even remember, I just liked the analogy, although I feel like I remember reading an article about how all Coke today is actually new coke because when they went back to classic coke they didn’t actually go back to the classic formula, They just said they did but still changed some ingredients.

        As far as I can recall, “new coke” tasted more like Pepsi? Sweeter. Did you try it?

        • @TropicalDingdong
          link
          11 year ago

          No I don’t drink soda. It was meant more tongue in cheek, but I suppose by not even drinking soda it might extend the metaphor?

          Like you could tell me anything and I wouldn’t have a clue.

    • @samus12345
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      It varies wildly depending on where you live. What state are you in?

        • @samus12345
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          True enough, but there’s a huge difference between how conservative different places are.

    • rhythmisaprancer
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Perhaps it is fixed now, I received a response about my submission and how to share it with friends.

  • @aelwero
    link
    91 year ago

    The real issue here isn’t the internet…

    The real issue is that this creates a new weapon of mass distraction that both Dems and reps can and will use against their opposition in the political fuck fuck games of the future.

    Might be reps are gonna jump on it to go after the alphabet soup kids today (no objection to there being an acronym, but fucking pick one…), but invariably, the people who are bitching about how this will be weaponised by “the other guys” are 100% within a decade going to be firing rounds off using the exact same gun and think it’s totally ok suddenly because the other guys are the target.

    They probably already know what they’ll be shooting at with it, because both sides are supporting it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Indeed. I have a feeling it’ll be used to basically sanitize what we’re allowed to see, furthering the assholes’ control over the American people. If this passes, VPNs and encryption will be right around the corner, because now they’re ‘circumvention’ devices kids and ‘bad actors’ use to skirt the law.

    • wagesj45
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      They probably already know what they’ll be shooting at with it, because both sides are supporting it.

      People that show any signs of class solidarity.

  • TacoButtPlug
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    America on its way to how internet is regulated in thicker authoritarian countries at the hands of extremists in political office and essentially people who don’t vote. Should be a “shaking hands” meme.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Both major parties support this bill. Someone’s getting elected unless the autocracy party gets its way.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    It’s a wishful dream, but a third party getting elected because the Republicans and Democrats tried to take away porn would be hilarious