I've reached a cynical point where anytime I see 'protection of youth' as a reason for something, I instantly assume an ulterior motive. I should want kids to be protected, but I've been conditioned to assume the worst whenever they're brought up.
That's because if they had an actual good reason for doing something they would just say it. If they're using the nebulous "protecting children" they're just trying to invoke a boogeyman and shield themselves from criticism because nobody wants to go on record as being in favor of endangering children which is the implied stance if you oppose "protecting children".
I'm putting forward the 'Stop Putting Puppies in Blenders' bill, which states that everyone needs to give me their PlayStations.
From atop your mountain of Playstations, will you finally stop putting puppies in blenders?!
Yep. Any time they throw buzzwords like "protection" "freedom" or "safety" into a bill, there's usually an ulterior motive that runs counter to those ideals.
If these fuckwits really wanted to 'protect the children' they'd have a .kids tld with regulation. Then parents and schools can choose to filter everything but that tld, or not.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Happy Tuesday!
Congrats to my colleagues and all the great journalists who won a Pulitzer Prize.
Read some of their work here, and send award-winning news tips to: cristiano.lima@washpost.com.
Today:
Congressional efforts to expand protections for kids online face a critical juncture this week as lawmakers weigh whether to hitch those bills to a must-pass aviation package.
The original article contains 57 words, the summary contains 57 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
