22 Democrats Sponsor a Bill That Could Censor Abortion Info From the Internet::The Kids Online Safety Act is “a blank check” for Republican AGs to “intimidate any way they can,” a digital civil liberties advocate told Jezebel.

  • @tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    109 months ago

    This is violently anti-intellectual freedom.

    Factual information doesn’t “harm children.” If your kid isn’t ready to learn about the world, it’s your job to do some parenting.

    The fact that these AGs won’t be using a bill like this to remove right wing propaganda from the internet tells you this is just a censorship tool, at best.

  • Chloyster [She/Her]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    359 months ago

    Genuinely baffled that Elizabeth Warren is cosponsoring this. She’s even said she regrets sesta fosta. Lawmakers simply don’t do their due diligence when throwing their support behind a bill, and its disgusting and disheartening.

    • @Fraylor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      129 months ago

      It’s pretty obvious that Elizabeth Warren is not, and likely never was any kind of hope for non-conservatives.

  • @FrostKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    459 months ago

    Slowly and slowly, it feels like parents are having less and less responsibility—and therefore control—over their children’s lives. Information is not a problem—if there’s something the parent doesn’t want the kid to see it up to them to enforce that, not the government.

    • @ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -29 months ago

      Is a parent shitty if, for example, their kids see stuff on the device another kid brought to school and shows around? Or when they visit a friend and their older sibling shows the kids something?

      You all sound like 20 year olds with little life experience who believe you know how parenting works, when in actuality you have 0 idea about it.

      • @FrostKing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        Well, I’ve parented three children, so no.

        Also— there is no reality in which a parent can completely control everything a child sees / interacts with. Nor should they, that’s not a healthy growing environment. Neither is one where the government does the same. And I don’t think they would by doing this—it would be just as successful as a parent trying. Because laws prohibiting stuff doesn’t make them disappear, people would still talk about stuff, and your child would still be mildly exposed in some way.

        My point was that if a parent wants to try to limit what their child sees, that’s their prerogative. I do not, however, think it’s the government’s.

    • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      89 months ago

      Its cause a lot of parents don’t want responsibility.

      They want teachers and tablets and cellphones to raise the kids, not themselves.

      We should be cracking down on shitty parents, not passing censorship laws that will be grossly misused by the obvious actors.

    • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️A
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59 months ago

      Parents need to be restricting their children’s use of the internet. I barely “used” the internet in the sense of interacting and posting until college. That’s much harder in this day now. I wasn’t even all that long ago I was in high school either. The real challenge now are phones and tablets. It’s a lot harder to control what your kids do online. All kinds of devices have web browsers.

      • @Landsharkgun@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 months ago

        Absolutely not. Free access to the Internet and a public library as a kid was crucial to my development. I was raised by a bunch of strict Christians who tried to stop us from reading Harry Potter, for Pete’s sake (it had witchcraft in it). I am completely against any censoring of information in the name of ‘protecting’ children from ‘harmful’ information. You know what I did as a kid when I came across something I was uncomfortable with? I put it down and found something else to read. Kids are fully capable of making that call themselves. I’m not sure why everyone acts like they can’t.

        • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️A
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 months ago

          Children are not mature enough to determine what they should have access to. Your parents kept you away from blatant racism. Children should not have access to ISIS videos. That sort of thing will screw them up for life.

          • @Landsharkgun@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            09 months ago

            A parent’s job is not to shield children from life. It’s to prepare them for life. You shouldn’t try to keep them from ever falling over. You just need to be there to pick them back up afterward. The more you let them engage with the world, with your support, the more mature they will become. Maturity isn’t something you magically acquire, it’s the direct result of confronting difficult things.

            • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️A
              link
              fedilink
              English
              09 months ago

              Part of being responsible means preventing children from doing things that will kill them or fuck them for life. Teenagers, especially boys, have a very bad tendency to seek out shock content. Facebook moderators literally have PTSD from seeing terrorism and CSAM.

              Children need to be protected from certain things and anyone who doesn’t realize that is still a petulant child because they were given common sense restrictions by their parents.

    • krolden
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      If you continually vote for the lesser of two evils, youll end up with the most imaginable evil.

    • @Spendrill@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      49 months ago

      This isn’t about kids and it isn’t about abortion it’s about limiting people’s access to unmediated information. The Democrats have just as much to lose as the Republicans if a third party which is a lesser evil than either emerges. Or, seeing as this is America we’re talking about, greater evil.

      Whatever. They don’t want people being able to just organise themselves as they please online.

          • Possibly linux
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Raising minimum wage and spending loads of money causes temporary boosts but it gets worse after the boom dies

            Actually the conditions are either going to improve in the long run or the jobs will be replaced by machines. This is because the world population increase is starting to slow down. In the US for instance the main population is decreasing if you exclude immigration because people are having less than two children on average

            • @Mafflez@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              59 months ago

              People have less kids when times are shit. There are fixes but with the economy, state of the world, politics, global warming and environmental issues ppl just don’t want kids and I don’t blame em.

              • Possibly linux
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -59 months ago

                That’s not it though. Times are much better than they were 100 years ago. It has more to do with people becoming more educated.

                • floppade [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  79 months ago

                  American life expectancy is declining. Theory doesn’t mean anything if you never observe reality.

    • @uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      69 months ago

      lesser, but still evil.

      The internet threatens their power base and they value their power more than they value any principle

      If the leopards don’t come for their faces from the right, those they betrayed on the left will.

    • @thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      09 months ago

      Dems are the faces, and repubs are the heels. But they’re both working towards the same goals, for the same boss. Every notice how all the really damaging legislation is always bipartisan?

    • @agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      They are, but the question has always been how much evil is acceptable to you, because the democrats know what they are and they’ll run whoever they can get away with. The worse the Republican option is, the lower the quality of candidate the Dems will forward. They know what their donors want.

  • @phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    129 months ago

    We want to force the entire world to block information that we don’t like (says the small government club)

    Good luck with that

      • @CmdrUlle@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        39 months ago

        Firstly, the EU is not about small government, so half of the joke is lost already. Secondly, rampant misinformation vs. factual information about abortion…

        But sure, it’s all the same.

        • @jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          29 months ago

          Creating a censorship apparatus is dangerous, because the person who gets to decide what gets censored has lots of power, and power corrupt over time.

          And what might be considered flagrant propaganda to one party, might seem just like political spin to another party.

          I think we’re all better off if we let people say what they say, and then evaluate the individuals by their words, rather than by approved content. I don’t see any sustainable way of approving content that doesn’t introduce bias and censorship unduly

        • @Pasta4u@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -10
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Do you know that everything would be factual ?

          Os there anyway to guarantee it would be ?

    • @treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      129 months ago

      Now imagine if they used the law to force Google not to provide any results in a search for abortion. While it may not remove content from the Internet, it effectively removes access to it.

      • /home/pineapplelover
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        This shows we need an open source search engine that anybody can whip up. To all the devs and volunteers out there, please make something like this, if there’s one already, I’ll see if I can contribute to the project.

        • floppade [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19 months ago

          In the meantime, you can use something like ProtonVPN to make sites think you’re not in the US. Google uses your IP address to determine your location and implement regulations based on that. You get better privacy options when it thinks you’re in Europe too.

      • @figaro@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        149 months ago

        A 16 year old girl who wants to know what to do after getting pregnant does not

  • Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -119 months ago

    I firmly believe abortion is a sin. However, I don’t see why each party is fighting so hard for it. Just leave it up to the states.

    Also this is goes to show that dystopian laws aren’t political

    • @Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      89 months ago

      Leaving it up to the states will not be advocated for in the long term by either party because that either 1) puts half the country in a dangerous position of not having access to healthcare or 2) still keeps half the country sinning against the emotional support daddy

      Also this is goes to show that dystopian laws aren’t political

      The word you’re looking for is partisan. This is absolutely a political issue as it is an issue of policy. And it is partisan too; the major parties have vastly different overall views and goals on reproductive healthcare, even if there isn’t 100% agreement in each party