23
Biden pushes anti-lgbtq censorship bill (nitter.net)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

The privacy part is a guarantee since there will be audits and fines associated with not being able to prove compliance.

If you attack the potential for anti-lgbt misuse, you might get a specific exclusion in the bill, and you're still left with a bad bill. If it attack the privacy issue, there's no way any part of the bill could be amended to satisfy privacy issues, so you just end up killing the bill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

    Potential? Like, they might not do it? Are you serious? They're going to do it. And it isn't an abuse of the bill, it is using the bill as it is intended.

    I shall again ask for your expertise over the queer folks ringing the alarm over this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    Yes, the attorney general might not. There will certainly be lobbyists, such as Heritage Foundation, so it's a bit up in the air.

    I'm not saying LGBT folks shouldn't be worried. They should. I'm just trying to say that the issue isn't specifically with LGBT issues, the root of the issue is deeper than that. If we fight from an LGBT perspective, we may or may not get an exclusion, but we'll still get the privacy violation. If we fight from a privacy perspective, we could get both.

    By all means, voice LGBT concerns, but also voice privacy concerns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent