‘Kids Online Safety Act’ will deliberately target trans content, senator admits.::undefined

  • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    193
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Of course it will. Then once they have all the trans people rounded up they’ll target the gays, then the blacks, the mexicans, and so on and so forth until everyone’s in camps that isn’t white.

    Republican supporters won’t wake up to this until they start coming after the stupid and obese.

    • Jay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re not safe even if you’re white. If nothing else they’ll target people who like the color blue just to keep some “enemy” in their sights.

      White people are just further down the list of easy targets. At that point they’ll start by hair color and nitpick their way down from there.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 year ago

          As long as they don’t have any lefty thoughts. Don’t forget that the Nazis also put unionists, socialists and communists in camps.

          • sock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            huge props to people that didnt blow their brains out at first opportunity going into camps

            idk how i would really react but death sounds a lot nicer than concentration camps

            • Rilichu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You mean the fact that the biggest initial source of support the Nazis got was from the emerging business class who were scared of the rising influence of labor unions? Can’t imagine why that gets pushed under the bed.

              Not like we had that nearly happen here in the US or anything though. Just don’t look into the Business Plot or that many of the Jan 6thers turned out to be small business tyrants…

              Just remember that the most dangerous Nazis aren’t the skinheads on the corner but the ones on Wall Street.

      • EzekielJK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Working backwards, we could reasonably expect Italian, Irish, and Polish people. Discrimination really isn’t about the color of your skin if history is anything to go off of.

    • weew@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      they’ll never target the stupid, those are the people who will support them no matter what. They’re already trying to demonize intelligence and education.

      the bar for what counts as stupid enough will continue to lower, though.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The bill – endorsed by president Joe Biden…”

    Why in the world would Biden support this Heritage foundation garbage?

    • Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      ‘Kids Online Safety Act’ will deliberately target trans content, senator admits

      He’s a granddad. We shouldn’t have granddads who can’t work a remote be president. I assume he can’t work a remote.

    • asteroidnova@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      This IS Biden. He’s always been a pretty bad human person. The only silver lining is that he’s been better than most recently. He’s a center-right politician just like most Democrats.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is actually a fantastic example of typical politics, but not in the way you’re imagining. It’s a classic poison pill. Write a bill with something good (protecting children’s privacy online, which I think we’d all agree is good) and then put something unpalatable into it (transphobia and homophobia).

        Someone votes for it, “Why do you hate LGBT people?” Someone votes against it, “Why don’t you want children to have stronger privacy laws on the Internet?”

        It’s exhausting and a lose-lose. That said, I prefer if they don’t vote for it and take heat for “being anti privacy”. You don’t negotiate with people’s rights.

        • hglman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is it protecting children? Claims need evidence and rules need tests. Until we do that its fear-based, exploitable control for the sake of control.

          • primbin@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Section 3a of the bill is the part that would be used to target LGBTQ content.

            Sections 4 talks about adding better parental controls which would give general statistics about what their kids are doing online, without parents being able to see/helicopter in on exaxrlt what their kids were looking at. It also would force sites to give children safe defaults when they create a profile, including the ability to disable personalized recommendations, placing limitations on dark patterns designed to manipulate children to stay on platforms for longer, making their information private by default, and limiting others’ ability to find and message them without the consent of children. Notably, these settings would all be optional, but enabled by default for children/users suspected to be children.

            I think the regulations described in section 4 would mostly be good things. They’re the types of settings that I’d prefer to use on my online accounts, at least. However, the bad outweighs the good here, and the content in section 3a is completely unacceptable.

            Funnily enough, I had to read through the bill twice, and only caught on to how bad section 3a was on my second time reading it.

            • elscallr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the regulations described in section 4 would mostly be good things. They’re the types of settings that I’d prefer to use on my online accounts, at least.

              Then put them on your accounts. Any regulation in this area is unacceptable.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know that it does. If bills and the discourse around them were actually about the stated topic, it would be revolutionary to politics.

        • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I legitimately can’t fucking stand idiots like you.

          You can agree with the overall or the majority of policy decisions of a political party while still criticizing their individual decisions as people. To think your political party is somehow ‘above it’ or morally just through and through is being willfully ignorant. It’s a level of mental gymnastics that’s outright absurd.

          Again, you can still vote for these people and still believe doing so increases the quality of life. And yes, we can make a distinction that one party isn’t just the ‘lesser of two evils’.

          But holy fuck, seriously. Both sides voted to invade the middle east, both sides vote to increase the military budget, both sides vote to increase their own congressional benefits, and both sides play the game where you need to vote on someone’s bill to get them to vote on yours, both sides have issues with the legal loop holes of bribery, both sides take lobbiest money, etc.

          Just because one is clearly better than the other doesn’t remove them from criticism and doesn’t deny the fact that they are still politicians doing political shit.

          Unstick your head from your ass, ffs

          • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude you are basically Hyde from That 70s Show riffing after a joint trying to dunk on “The Man”. You never have to dog far with losers like you to find the conspiracy theories and alternative facts and we all know form there it’s a Misty mountain hop to alt right malarkey.

            Go sell crazy somewhere else.

  • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Trans porn must be curropting children because it’s all I watch now and my mind is way stronger than a child’s.” -Marsha Blackburn

  • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, at this stage you can tell that by the name.

    These deplorables love children so much that they don’t even bat an eye at using child sexual abuse as a political tool while simultaneously turning a blind eye to 300,000 children raped by clergy.

    • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or children starving because they have to pay for shitty food at school, or children starving and having a bad life because their parents can’t afford to pay for more even if they already work, or children at orphanages…

      Yeah, much like with forbidding abortion (but then never caring whether the no longer-aborted child will have a proper home to live), children are just a political tool.

  • the_crab_man@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should be the parents’ job to regulate what kind of content their children consume on the internet, not the government’s.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yep exactly as we all knew.

    She wants to confine children like I was to the years of confusion and alienation I had to go through. That’s cruel. I should not have had to feel so alone and nobody else should either.

    • glacier
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is more than just cruel. It is abusive and genocidal. LGBT youth will die because of this law and the countless others being passed in certain states.

  • mimichuu_@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why is it always the Save The Children Act and not the Erradicate Trans People Act?

    • average_internet_enjoyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah the 1st amendment has gone out the window here. (on the other hand, why are they pushing the lgtbtq movement on kids. Kids aren’t smart at all and won’t understand the deeper meaning…)