this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
717 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

34830 readers
21 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nicktron@kbin.social 142 points 1 year ago (4 children)

More of them “freedoms” that you yanks are always going on about?

[–] cantsurf@lemm.ee 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, no, it's "free dumbs". As in, they were giving away stupidity for free, so we each took as much as we could carry.

[–] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Experiencing a protracted regression of sanity, similar to Brexit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml 112 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ah yes.. forever and again, the siren song of children being used as an excuse for draconian, rights eroding legislation.. its amazing how much responsibility parents have shirked to the state as they replace babysitters with cellphones and tablets.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Disgusted_Tadpole@lemmy.ml 84 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, children security. Of course.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@discuss.tchncs.de 78 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And then everybody slaps a "Only for 18+, fill in your birth day" on their site and nobody can legally claim it's harming children.

[–] Kikkertje@aussie.zone 66 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And suddenly everyone was born on Jan 1st, 2000

[–] sunbytes@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm not doing maths to keep it at 18 each year.

I do 1900 lol

[–] Supermuff@feddit.de 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You still live in 2018?

People born in 2000 are 23

[–] sunbytes@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

I didn't say I was going to do maths for you either ;)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is how it works on YouTube now, the rules for kids content are draconic and you risk your account, so everybody just says "this is not for kids" on all videos.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 16 points 1 year ago

YouTube music will not let you put a “for kids” marked song on a playlist! It kind of sucks for putting my KID’s favorite goofy songs on my KID’s playlist. The kid’s playlist that is composed entirely of content not marked “for kids” because that’s all that is possible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wagoner@infosec.pub 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which you will need to prove by sending your personal identification to a commercial third party provider. Who will eventually get hacked and your data will be leaked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’m shocked that the first openly gay senator Tammy Baldwin is a co-sponsor for the bill. You bet I’m writing her.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 71 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately this is just ONE of MANY bad internet bills currently up for consideration and with bipartisan support. Help fight all of them at https://badinternetbills.com

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 1 year ago

!bad_internet_bills@lemmy.sdf.org is tracking all the bad internet bills ... right now KOSA's where the most action is.

[–] anon232@lemm.ee 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The internet is about to move to the rest of the world if this passes, no one will host a web server in the US after this.

[–] gsa4555@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The problem is where? The EU is trying to apply similar censorship via the DSA, Russia we all know is LGBTphobic and not truly for free speech, Canada is a joke, and China is lol. Not even sure if Japan is viable.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spez@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

I don't know how American voters can stand for this, how can you re-elect people who cause your children to get shot in schools and believe the same people have set out to protect them with things like these?

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

A lot of them are really stupid hateful racists. They are figuratively and literally shooting themselves in the foot.

[–] dion_starfire@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Because the way voting works in the US is based on assumptions from the days when getting all the votes together to tally them would have been a logistical nightmare. Instead of counting everyone's vote individually, the map is divided into regions. Each region tallies up their votes, and then one single vote is counted for that entire region based on the majority vote from that region. Those regional votes are tallied, and the majority winner of the regions gets the win. By drawing the regions correctly (a process called gerrymandering), you can put the majority of one party's voters into a small handful of regions, so all of them only count as a handful of regional votes while making sure the rest of the regions are drawn to give the other party a 51%+ majority. As a result, it's possible to have a candidate that would garner less than 50% of the individual votes win a landslide of over 75% of the regional votes.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] silentdon@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would you oppose this? Don't you want children to be safe online? Won't anybody please think of the children? /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

This is exactly the bullshit policy Biden sticks his dick into everytime. I really don't want to hate the guy but what a fucking idiot.

Biden being anything but conservative lite is just the fucking truth.

[–] Gawanoh@feddit.de 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From my outside perspective the whole democratic party is conservative lite.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Salix@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Think of the children" is such a dumb excuse that people keep using in the US to pass laws that restricts citizens and are anti-privacy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Why would a state attorney generally have any oversight over the content of the internet? That seems way out of scope for their job

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately I live in a backwards, ignorant red state represented by complete idiots. The last time I wrote to my representatives asking them to oppose something like this they wrote back saying "the agree fully" and then went on to explain that they would definitely support it and thanked me for backing them... Then went on to show a complete lack of understanding of the bill in question.

And I've been on his email list ever since despite clicking unsubscribe probably 30 times. The crusty sock puppet probably thinks that means "show me more" based on how he responded to my initial email.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

American here, and I am totally OK with a tiny bit of extra latency if people & companies want to move their servers to some place in Europe that actually respects freedom and people.

Though I suspect that if you’re a US company with servers located abroad, they will still make the law apply to you since you control it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bizarroland@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't know if I'm in the right here but I'm practically at the point where I'm just like fuck it, let them ruin the internet.

I want to hear them scream when because of their own actions they have tanked the companies that their retirements are depending on.

Let's see how fast they can fix shit when they have 35 million angry retirees that hold 78% of the wealth in the country mad at them and telling them to fix it.

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I would appreciate governments, especially the American government, refraining from passing laws "for the children". They never are. They never work. They are a scam that gives the appearance of being beneficial to all while only benefiting a few. They accomplish nothing the scam indicates it will and instead turns out to be another overreach of government power.

No more "for the children" nonsense from any government - it's not about them and you know it.

You want to pass something for the good of the children? GET RID OF THE GODDAM GUNS.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] faerydaes@midwest.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I emailed my senators, both Democrats. One wrote me back telling me how proud they were of co-sponsoring the bill. The other told me how important it is to protect kids from the dangers of social media. WTF.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 1 year ago

WTF indeed. But, thanks for emailing them -- they track how much email they get in each direction, and if there's enough they may rethink their position.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Horrifying to see Biden and the Dems unite with the Republicans on an anti-LGBT+ bill.

[–] thoro@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

It is incredibly typical.

My reaction to the sponsor list would be the shocked Pikachu meme.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] millionsofplayers@lemmy.one 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

How do I check if my senator has signed? Or is that not public information

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org 36 points 1 year ago (7 children)

here's the list of cosponsors ... if they're there, then they're certainly supporting it. It's worth contacting them in any case; they'll often send you a form reply saying their position on the bill.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] obinice@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for noting the US focus in the title <3

So often I see sweeping headlines like this that are actually only about a single country, and the country is always named (as it's a key piece of information about the story) unless it's the USA, at which point they just assume you must be in the USA too and so being up front about what country they're talking about isn't a priority xD

[–] BangersAndMash@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Unfortunately this is about the first time, I'd (almost) disagree with you. If the US bans something on, or makes a law about, the internet it almost always affects the rest of the world. The only difference is the rest of the world has no say in the matter :(

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] rothaine@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Donate to the EFF.

[–] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

"would give the attorney general of every state, including red states, the right to sue"

What a weird distinction to make. I know they're getting squirrelly, but they still technically count in the "every state" column.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ooooh... the liberals are about to hand the fascists the keys to the tanks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Screw both parties and Joe Biden in particular. I'll be asking my senators to oppose this, though I highly doubt it'll matter.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] mayo@lemmy.today 15 points 1 year ago

How is this line up with 'liberty'? The US gov can't stop intruding into the private sphere.

load more comments
view more: next ›