[flagged]
You're distorting pretty hard about what happened there (mister random numbered throwaway account) but even if you weren't, that is not the definition of fascism.
The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
151–160 of 598 posts
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!
Coordinated opposition campaigns against misinformed and dangerous legislation has been effective in stopping bad laws [1]. After a website blackout, including a Wikipedia shutdown, lawmakers in Washington decided not to proceed with the Stop Online Privacy Act in 2012. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
From your linked Wikipedia articles many corporations including Google were part of that opposite campaign. Exactly the type of people donating untold millions to our legislatures. Had nothing to do with any kind of grassroots pressure.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!
Money is a poor substitute for people who care. The only people who think otherwise are terminally online losers who have never organized anything larger than a birthday party.
Maybe in your country but not in the hellhole that is the US.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean targeting with ads, sucking into feeds, making kids harm themselves and making money on this with lip service about corporate responsibility? Sounds about right.
you dont need to buy your kid the internet.
Yep, they'll get it even if you don't buy it for them
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#155Targeting the kids is so infuriatingly successful tactics. It gives the adults the option to be apathetic. In reality, anyone who is a kid now will never know any better. It just means we're the last generations that had the luxury of a world that remembered what privacy was.
EDIT: about half to two thirds of the responders didn't catch "I'm not a fan of these proposed solutions." I am not saying I like these solutions. I am trying to explain why they have support among the general public. Many of these responses are the usual "shoot the messenger" response you get online when you point out what the "other side" thinks and why they think it even if you don't necessarily agree . On this is…
This is an outrage zone. Leave your rationality at the door please.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!
Espiallat ($9.5 million) vs Darializa (350k) Money matters but a popular movement is more powerful still in some places look up DSA
Unfortunately "some places" does not include the US federal government.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's largely a wealth inequality issue. Rich parents can have nannies, expensive software, or a parent who stays home from work. Poorer parents do not have time or energy to police this stuff or supervise their kids. They're too busy putting food on the table and paying rent or a mortgage.
Rich parents can not prevent their children from accessing pornography and social media on the internet, and will also not be able to do so after this legislation. Pornography is often delivered by people who don't care about US legislation, and social media is carefully left undefined, intentionally confounded with algorithms used to surface content (which people actually do object to at least the opaqueness of.) I,…
When I was 14 I could just type porn.com into the address bar to see porn. (I remember they had one of those fake customer testimonials - saying basically "wow! this site is so awesome because porn.com is the best address for a porn site" which was very funny. Besides that it was nothing, so next time I googled the word porn).
Should it be that easy or should there be some road blocks? Should I have been able to go into a store at 14 and buy a beer?
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I find everything you listed here safer than letting a kid have unfiltered unlimited access to TikTok. You know a gun or a bomb is dangerous, so you'll probably be careful with it. The gun and the bomb are not engineered on purpose to hook you by exploiting your dopamine pathways and get you to shoot yourself or blow yourself up. EDIT: I'm being a little hyperbolic here, but I'm also talking about aggregat…
> Personally I find everything you listed here safer than letting a kid have unfiltered unlimited access to TikTok. This sounds like you have a media addiction. This is the kind of extreme hyperbole that we spent a year or two saturated with when a bunch of states and a bunch of billionaires decided that American people were saying too much on Tiktok about Israel, and something something China evil.
A lot of people including a lot of kids do have a media addiction. Should we do something about it? Remember that today's kids will be your caretakers when you're 80.
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth hurts and you're getting downvoted for it. The public at large have real issues with the current state of the internet and people here don't want to hear it or address it so we get this.
Exactly. People are genuinely angry that the social media giants seem to have known for years that their products are harmful. And, more so, that they've had a decade to reduce or mitigate the harms but have consistently (some might think deliberately) failed to do so. So now we have the sledgehammer of legislation being wielded to do the job instead. It's not an ideal outcome by any means, but what did people think…
We could have thoughtfully considered legislation, like the California age act
Re: The KIDS Act would require age checks to get online
#160Who wants this?
All governments in the world, both sides of politics. It's for the kids, you understand - to protect the kids. There is no more noble purpose than to protect the kids. Only a monster would not want to protect the kids.
"kids" is just another word for "people" by the way - everyone is a kid, and everyone is an adult, except for people who die very young. We should not make the mistake of thinking of them as two separate independent categories of people.