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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 123 points 3 years ago (40 children)

Cmon democrats, you're supposed to be the lesser evil...

  • source
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    If you can only vote for one option then the better a 3rd party does the more it hurts the main party closest to it. I would expect Democrats and Republicans to be funding 3rd parties in the hopes of improving their chances of getting the most votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    For the 2020 election in my state, republican groups funded the campaign to collect signatures for the green party to be on the ballot. So your expectations are met.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 101 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Doesn't this fall under first ammendment rights at that point? You can't block discussion and sharing of information online without violating the right to free speech.

    Not that these fascists care...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There are no rights unless they are backed by the threat of violent revolution.

    Who's gonna save you? The Supreme Court?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago

    The Supreme Court is supposed to recognize the dangers of carving out exceptions to civil rights. They stopped a while ago, and started cutting into those rights severely after the PATRIOT act. The dominance of Federalist Society shills on the bench only facilitated this process more.

    But that's come at a cost. Dobbs demonstrated to the public the US Supreme Court is interested in agendas outside public interest (specifically those of the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation). It's now clearer than ever the court system is not going to protect our rights. That includes our lives and persons from law-enforcement brutality and overreach. Your fourth- and fifth-amendment protections have been gutted to insignificance. And a lot of us know that, that our framers traded constitutional monarchy for unchecked plutocracy with extra steps.

    So while we fear the police and the courts, we don't trust them. Crime no longer is synonymous with wrongdoing. Conviction no longer means guilt so much as officers torturing a confession out of someone and judges filling jury boxes with bigoted imbiciles.

    Those who want actual democracy know our establishment system doesn't give them any power, so we're going to obey censorship laws the way we obey speed limits.

    But this mean the public won't be going to law enforcement when it comes to more nefarous criminals. Where not going to report terrorists and mobsters or even CSAM traffickers when drawing attention to ourselves could get our house raided and our kids killed, which is what we face any time we see police (unless we're affluent and in an upper-class neighborhood.)

    The rest of us have more in common with the local rec-drug supplier than we do a police officer. And the dealer won't kill our dog.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 92 points 3 years ago (15 children)

    Censor something from the internet? good luck lol

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 82 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 62 points 3 years ago*
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • [–] 55 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 52 points 3 years ago

    LGBTQ rights activists were complaining about this already, and people didn't listen. Using a more highly motivating issue like abortion is sadly necessary to get people to care. It could censor so many important issues, it's a travesty it's gotten this far.

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    I've been following KOSA. Bad bill.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (7 children)

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

    Good luck with that

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [+] 12 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Welp. Guess I’m giving my senator a call today.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›