this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
258 points (92.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4485 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Kids Online Safety Act has gained support from right-wing groups that want to crack down on LGBTQ content, and now Senator Elizabeth Warren.


Evan Greer is a transgender activist, musician and writer based in Boston. She’s the director of the digital rights non-profit Fight For The Future.

Senator Marsha Blackburn was recently caught on camera saying the goal of her bill, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), is to "protect minor children from the transgender in this culture." That’s not that surprising. Senator Blackburn is one of the most anti-LGBTQ members of the Senate, and has said many terrible and offensive things about transgender people. What is surprising, is that Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, long seen as an LGBTQ ally, apparently wants to help Blackburn advance her legislative attack on our community.

This week, Senator Warren became a co-sponsor of KOSA, a dangerous and misguided bill that will make kids less safe, not more safe. KOSA is supported by right-wing groups that have campaigned against LGBTQ rights for decades, like NCOSE and Heritage Foundation, explicitly because it will allow conservative State Attorneys General to crack down on LGBTQ content under the guise of “protecting kids.” The bill seeks to address legitimate harm, but is written in such a way that it allows trans and LGBTQ youth to be exploited for cheap political points.

Senator Warren is absolutely right that Big Tech companies are out of control and need to be regulated. We’ve cheered her support for antitrust and privacy legislation. But KOSA will make the harms of Big Tech worse, not better.

The bill has been roundly condemned by a broad coalition of civil society, LGBTQ rights, human rights, and racial justice organizations as well as parents of transgender children. Advocates have driven more than 300,000 emails and calls to lawmakers against KOSA, including many from young people who have been sounding the alarm about the bill on TikTok and other social media platforms.

Lawmakers are also expressing concerns. Rep Maxwell Frost (D-FL), the youngest member of the House, has come out against KOSA, along with Senator Wyden of Oregon.

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, a longtime champion of more privacy and safety protections for kids online, has also expressed concerns about KOSA. In the Senate Commerce Committee markup of the bill he said, "I commend the authors for their work on the bill, but I want to continue to work to modify the bill to fix the concerns that the LGBTQ community has been raising. More work needs to be done."

Despite all of this, and over the objections of dozens of human rights groups like the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition and the ACLU, Senator Warren has decided to sign on as a cosponsor of KOSA. Worse, she has done so without securing a single change to the bill. Human rights and civil liberties groups are trying to hold the line to demand meaningful changes to protect LGBTQ and other marginalized groups that are being attacked in states, Senator Warren is breaking that line to help pass a deeply flawed bill.

I’d like to think that this misstep was unintentional, especially given Senator Warren’s long record of purported support for the LGBTQ community. At a time when my community faces unprecedented danger, I genuinely hope that the Senator does not care more about scoring political points by posturing as tough on Big Tech than she does about the actual substance of the legislation and whether it will help or hurt marginalized communities.

As a former law professor, Senator Warren should also know better than to cosponsor a bill that constitutional experts have said is blatantly unconstitutional as written. A court just found that California’s Age Appropriate Design Code, which KOSA borrows a lot from, likely violates the First Amendment, because it allows the government to dictate what content platforms can show to which users. The provisions that will almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment are the very same provisions that will do damage to my community and that we’ve asked lawmakers to change.

KOSA might be redeemable. There are good faith supporters of the bill who want to take on big tech and stop exploitative practices that harm children and adults in the name of greed. But they’ve made a bad bargain and are refusing to make common sense changes that will not only protect marginalized communities but would also make the bill less likely to be struck down in court. Unfortunately, these supporters are trading the rights of marginalized people for expediency in passing a dangerous bill. They’ve made changes to KOSA, but none of them address the bill’s deadly flaws: it requires censorship and incentivizes invasive age verification.

I’d hoped Senator Warren wouldn’t make this kind of trade. It’s a deal that will have deadly consequences for the most vulnerable people in our society, especially transgender youth, who already face disproportionate rates of violence, discrimination, self-harm, and who are actively being targeted by extreme right wing legislatures and attorneys general. The very same attorneys general that KOSA will empower to censor online speech.

Senator Warren is an influential member of Congress. She’s a member of Democratic leadership and a former presidential candidate. And she’s shown thoughtfulness on these issues in the past. She rightly expressed regret over her support for SESTA/FOSTA, and introduced an important bill to study the harm it did to sex workers and LGBTQ rights.

I hope that Senator Warren will read the letter signed by hundreds of parents of trans and gender expansive kids, many of whom are from Massachusetts, and use her power to pressure changes in KOSA that will actually protect marginalized communities. As it stands, her cosponsorship advances policies that Sen. Blackburn and far-right hate groups hope will be used against my community.

link: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjven5/elizabeth-warren-just-backed-an-online-safety-bill-that-will-harm-lgbtq-youth

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Warren for years now has been doing stuff like this. Saying one thing while supporting something that doesn't do what she claims to care about. She's rubbed me the wrong way ever since the multiple sketchy things she said/did when she was running against Bernie.

Won't even bother going into how much she loves supporting the banks. She's no different than corpo neolibs, she just wears a different costume.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So her demands for the return of oversight over banking just didn't happen, in your magical world where Warren isn't one of the more progressive Dem senators?

Archive Link

Dislike her all you want, but try to do it for reasons that actually exist, if you don't mind.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh well that one single anecdote makes up for everything else.

Why does everything on social media need to be dumbed down to overly black and white simple arguments? You realize she can do that and still do other things that are pro-bank right?

Like her all you want, but try not to claim anyone who has a problem with her actions are making them all up, if you don't mind.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim. I’m going to assume you’re making it up as all the evidence I can find points to the contrary.

If you’re that against “dumbing things down,” you could try making a better argument than your opinion backed by nothing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why? People like yourself, who respond the way you did, never change their opinions when presented with facts. You'll defend whatever she did or move the goal posts.

You can think whatever you want of her but reality is reality. She isn't the progressive she markets herself as.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess we'll never know, as you continue to provide...nothing.

It's entirely possible that Warren has pulled the wool over my eyes, established the CFPB as an obscure joke, Wall Street only pretends to hate her, and she's in the pocket of corporate America and banks, but no one that says these things ever seems to provide any proof of any of it.

This is especially fun, since usually they at least post some Fox News BS that laughably contradicts reality, but your trust-me-bro antics are even better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Watching her during the 2012 debates, she struck me as a corpo liberal, VERY happy to say whatever focus tested best

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This doesn't ring true, like...at all. In 2012, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described her by saying "no other candidate in 2012 represents a greater threat to free enterprise than Professor Warren." Archive Link.

I didn't watch any debate she had with Scott Brown in 2012, when she was running for Senate, for the first time, but I know she ran unopposed in the democratic primary for that position.

What exactly do you have as evidence of her being corpo-ANYTHING in that year?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely none, I'm not American and don't know her in detail. I watched the 1012 debates and had that impression. The end.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean now I’m more curious. You’re not American, you have no detailed interest in Warren…what random set of circumstances had you watching her debates in 2012, when she was running for political office for the first time?

Frankly I wouldn’t think most non-Americans would have heard of her before she ran for President.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Wanting to learn more.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Before being elected to Federal government. She was registered as a republican for quite some time. Though I'm not sure it's even as clear cut as that.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just a reminder that politicians, whether you agree with them or not, can be wrong about something. You can oppose an idea even if it means criticizing someone you otherwise support, and that is neither a contradiction not an attack on your party.

If we support the individuals over ideas, then we end up with despots.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are Democrat politicians that need a kick in the ass, and deserve to be called out for their shit, that shouldn't get you labeled as an enemy by your own party. Too many people see criticisms of a democrat as you showing support for the Republicans, which is a huge chasm.

Sometimes on here you can criticize Biden, and you'll get replies saying "how is Trump better?" Or "so you support Republicans then!" As if those are the only two paths.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

And you get it from both sides. Cobservatives will take those criticisms and say, "See? you should vote for DeSantis!" as though that's a decision that has ever made a shred of sense for anyone.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best take in this thread. Warren is completely wrong about this and someone needs to bring her up to speed on the harm these bills pose. Mistakes like this are easily avoidable if your staff educates you properly in areas you have no expertise.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can someone tell me/link me what this bill actually entails?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The EFF has an article that explains the latest changes (and why they still oppose the bill): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/congress-amended-kosa-its-still-censorship-bill

And an article explaining the "original" bill: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/kids-online-safety-act-still-huge-danger-our-rights-online

* "original" in quotes because KOSA was created in 2022, rejected, then resurrected in 2023. This is the resurrected 2023 version.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thanks a lot

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

If you oppose this bill, you can fill out this form to email your senator: https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-kosa-will-censor-the-internet-but-won-t-help-kids

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So basically the only hope now to stop KOSA is the courts. Kids are fucked. I'm glad my daughter knows how to use a VPN.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Earlier in this fever-dream hell-scape timeline, I didn't imagine that kids would literally need a VPN as they tried to just exist. Yet here we are, and I'm right with you, I've been setting my kids up with VPN as well, and talking to them about what sort of things they need to be careful about looking up without the VPN connection. Fucking dystopian.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The snake bites again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Liz Warren moment

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She's been tolerable lately, but I think it's finally time Oblivious Warren moves along.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"This senator is wrong about something, so she should probably be voted out of office."

Like. No, man. You don't remove a progressive Dem because they're wrong about one thing. You argue with them, educate them, and get them to change their mind.

Warren made and successfully defended the CFPB. She's wrong about this, but you don't throw people into the garbage because they have one bad take.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

More than one sensible person in this thread. Pleasantly surprised.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would be a good point if this was the only reason I felt this way. I personally think she shifted left for political reasons and, as such, will slide back if it benefits her. That said, this is the second time that I'm aware that she's sought to damage internet freedoms to protect someone else. Last time, it was service women on revenge porn sites, now it's "for the children." I don't think she's that great, is all. Of course, someone better would have to run, so I may vote for in the end anyway.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah America is just full of perfectly pure left politicians. Why bother with someone who screwed up a whole twice (in your opinion, I don’t have enough info to make a point on your other instance of failing).

She shifted left because the right in this country are literally trying to dismantle it. That’s as good a reason as any. Throw stones at her for this, but don’t chuck someone who actually accomplishes things for the working class in the gutter.