I truly despise how I can't just assume that something does what it says it does on the title. Gotta read a separate article analyzing it or read it in full myself.
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
220 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4485 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, that's America for you. Even after reading it I'm still a little confused and distrustful. Everything that it's saying seems good and rational, so why on earth are any Republicans backing it? Have they been tricked into passing an actual good law that is broadly popular? Have they managed to sneak in some insane line promising Meta a right to my first-born's soul?
I heard about it on a somewhat right-leaning youtube channel, China Uncensored - the host was surprised it was bipartisan as well. Honestly that channel has been the only reporting I've seen on it despite how important it is, and I wonder why Pres. Biden and Democrats in general aren't more vocal about the bill considering how widely popular it would be.
Around 3:00 in this video if you want to see: https://youtu.be/RqaqGXI1KVY
Democrats CAN'T publicize their good for society bills until AFTER they pass. If they do the MAGAs will just turn it into a partisan issue and it'll never make it through. Look at the border bill!
As long as they keep it quiet, MAGAs stay quiet and uninformed, this lets the rest of the house function reasonably and bipartisan bills are possible.
It’s so sad that this seems to be the logical answer.
Eh, there's been a bunch of these attempts that have failed, so I'm not gonna criticize Biden too harshly for not counting his chickens before they've hatched. You're certainly right about the Dems optics issues though, this is the third in a string of huge wins regarding regulation of the tech sector, and it feels like I've only seen chatter about it on Lemmy.
Maybe they keep it quiet to prevent too much industry push-back? Even that doesn't really make sense, industry is definitely aware of what this bill would mean.
Maybe they plan on letting it die in committee and are keeping it quiet to prevent consumer awareness of the bill's existence - it would certainly be a very popular piece of legislation if it was more widely known.
Well it can't die in committee, it passed the House. The Senate has shown themselves to be significantly more intelligent and willing to function as a governing body, even if they still have their share of crazies. I wouldn't be surprised if this moved as quickly as the TikTok ban bill did into law now that it's passed the biggest hurdle.
Is that how it works? I assumed the Senate had a situation where bills sometimes don't get voted on as well. This is good news!
They did for quite awhile cause of McConnell, the thing is that the MAGA types kinda broke that control. Also some of the MAGA types will probably vot for this bill because they are very erratic.
Privacy does seem to be an issue certain MAGA folks would respond well to, for sure.
So long as the dems stay quite on it they can pretty much ensure they get the votes needed.
Meals for orphans bill (The meals will be made from other orphans).
Oh man I was hoping I could just wrangle up some orphans and collect the food bounty.
Trading orphans for food would be a nice fallback, if I ever get sick of my kid, and a bit peckish at the same time.
It's so close to the TikTok ban that they probably feel like both bills have the same aims.
I mean, technically both bills do, in that they're both protecting American's data. One does it by preventing adversarial foreign interests, the other does it by curtailing adversarial domestic interests.
According to one of the articles, the bill in my post also has restrictions on sharing user data with foreign adversaries.
I just naturally assume ulterior motives.
It'll be interesting to see what privacy rights we Americans actually have, once it's goes into law.
It's a good article, breaks down a lot of the major points. But I still worry about the 'devil is in the details', and how it effects regular people day-to-day.
What does a license have to do with the topic?
This cat has a link to the Creative Commons license at the bottom of all of his comments.
How very Facebook will sell your data if you do not copy and paste this message of them.
Their posts show up in Google with ads next to them. That is commercial use, which is prohibited by that license. I wonder if they intend to sue Google.
I believe the CC license requires the right holder to contact the violator and give them 30 days to comply.
So basically Google will remove it if you send them a dmca notice.
It still has to go through the Senate and be signed, there will probably be significant changes before it has a chance to become law.
If I understand the US system correctly, even if this does become law, its still up for interpretation by the supreme court, so it'll still likely favor Republican interests.
It still has to go through the Senate and be signed, there will probably be significant changes before it has a chance to become law.
For better, or for worse, will be the thing to keep an eye out for.
I was able to find this clip on YouTube of the bills' sponsors talking about it on CNBC from before it passed the House. Otherwise practically no broadcast about this.