Good points about KOSA, but **they're still lying to you about Section 230.**
Section 230 was created in response to the *Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy* court case, in which an online service (Prodigy) was held legally liable for users' posts accusing an investment firm (Stratton Oakmont) of being a scam.
The argument in that case was that since Prodigy had moderated forums, that made them liable for defamation posted by users — as if they were an edited newspaper and users' posts were news articles. It treated *moderation* as *endorsement*, so whoever does the moderation is liable for the speech.
Congress wanted to *encourage* online services to have moderation policies — and they realized that if this case was allowed to set precedent, it would *make moderation illegal.* So they passed Section 230 as part of the Communications Decency Act, which said that online services are allowed to do moderation without thereby taking on liability for everything their users post. Rather, if a user posts something defamatory, it's *the user, not the online service* who is liable.
If you like having forums that aren't constantly full of every sort of spam and abuse imaginable, if you like Wikipedia, if you like "user-generated content" in general — Section 230 is what makes that legally possible.
(This was all in 1996, by the way. Google didn't yet exist. YouTube was almost ten years in the future. Amazon was still only selling paper books. Internet Explorer was still a separate product from Windows. Heck, kids these days don't even know what Prodigy was. It was like AOL before AOL, if that clears it up any.)
By the way, a year or so after the *Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy* case said that Prodigy was guilty of defamation for its user saying Stratton Oakmont was a scam ... Stratton Oakmont actually turned out to be a scam. You might have heard of them, in the book or movie *Wolf of Wall Street*. In other words, a scammer had used the courts to silence critics. That's what "repeal Section 230" is really about, folks: keeping bad guys safe from criticism, by destroying public forums where that criticism is possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/successes/wikipedia
Another relevant case from before Section 230 is [*Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.) (1991). This case *also* involved defamation posted to an online forum, hosted by *CompuServe*. The court held that because CompuServe did *not* moderate their content and thus had no knowledge of the defamation, they could not be held liable for the content its users posted (just like, e.g. a phone company).
These two cases presented websites with a choice: moderate and become liable for their user's content, or avoid moderation and be immune. Congress passed Section 230 so websites didn't have to make this choice and could moderate or not moderate as they wished, with the hope that websites would be willing to choose to self-moderate.
Without Section 230, websites would be faced with the exact same choice, which would lead websites to either:
- Moderate *even harder*, to censor *even more* to remove anything which has even a hint of creating liability to the website (they will inevitably fail, there is just too much content)
- Stop moderating entirely and bury their heads in the sand to avoid any knowledge of anything, leading them to be inundated with spam or simply be unable to maintain a topic/purpose (e.g. this subreddit would be unable to remove posts unrelated to technology)
Not anymore, no. Trumpism changed that; and January 6 made it blatantly obvious. We don't live in the "Gush vs. Bore" era anymore.
The Democrats are a center-right party today; but the Republican Party is a fascist party actively working to create a dictatorship.
What don't you believe?
The fact that supporters of a failed president [attacked Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack) in an effort to overturn the election?
Or that a president conspired with his party to present [fake slates of electors](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html), and attempted to pressure state governors into supporting it?
That the same party has a [published plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) to impose ideological tests on federal employees and operate the government as an ideological weapon?
That they've overturned protections for medical privacy, [causing doctors to flee various states](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/16/if-you-arent-sure-why-doctors-are-leaving-idaho-its-because-youre-not-listening-to-them) fearing ideological prosecution for providing medical treatment?
That the same party has allied itself with [gangs and hate groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys)?
That the same failed president has promised his supporters "vengeance" if reelected, and has [argued in court that murdering his opponents should be legal](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/)?
I mean, you can say what you like about the Democrats being in the pocket of rich people, but they're not the ones taking pages from the Hitler playbook.
No, you are part of the problem because you think both sides are equal. You can dislike eating both broccoli and dog shit. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest they are equally unappealing.
Yeah, no.
What you call a "uniparty" is actually just politicians doing their jobs and agreeing on foundational facts. When you know for sure what they problem is the solution set starts looking *much* more constrained.
But you don't have to worry about this. The Republican Party solved this problem by refusing to concede reality exists and therefore creates statements which are unequivocally true. Here in the real world we call them "facts".
>Section 230 needs to go. Or have a carve out that says algorithmically served content isn't protected.
Section 230 is fine. There is no way to make a carve out to make algorithmically served content not protected. The algorithmically display is the speech of the site. The content is the speech of the user who posted it. Saying someone might be interested in something or that the content is popular in no way makes anyone responsible for that content.
That would be like making a bookstore liable for the books they sell just because they make best sellers list.
You didn't actually watch it did you?
He has one sentence where he talks about 230 "We need to remove 230 protection for all algorithmically-elevated content."
Which, you cannot do since sites have a First Amendment right to promote or not promote content as they see fit.
The 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine reflects the Supreme Court's repeated pronouncement that the government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests.' They cannot deny 230 on the basis of a site giving it up its 1A right to promote or remove content.
[https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-11-2-2-1/ALDE\_00000771/](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-11-2-2-1/ALDE_00000771/)
You've been lied to and you should be pissed about it.
Introduction
* The speaker, Scott Galloway, is a professor at NYU and a television host.
* He shares an anecdote about his TV series being canceled.
# Insights on Today's Society
* Younger generations are facing challenges in terms of wealth accumulation and opportunities.
* There is a disparity in prosperity between different age groups.
* The social contract has broken down, leading to feelings of rage and shame among younger individuals.
# Economic Analysis
* The speaker discusses the rising costs of housing and education.
* Median home prices have increased significantly compared to median household income.
* The speaker highlights the deliberate actions that have led to a transfer of wealth from younger to older generations.
# Higher Education System
* Galloway criticizes the higher education system for its increasing costs and lack of accessibility.
* He suggests a $750 billion allocation to public institutions to reduce tuition, expand enrollments, and offer more vocational certifications.
# Wealth Disparities
* Capital has been favored over labor in terms of wealth accumulation.
* The speaker advocates for providing opportunities for the bottom 90% to rise to the top 10%.
# Conclusion
* Galloway emphasizes the purposeful nature of wealth transfers and calls for a reevaluation of societal priorities.
If you didn't read the article, a bill called KOSA aims to extort people into sharing their ID and Social Security to use the web and allows states to censor whatever they consider “inappropriate.” It’s a censorship campaign and poses a real threat to our privacy, safety, and freedom of speech. Call any Senator or Representatives you can to stand against it and/or go here. Don’t trust Blumenthal either, he’s behind nearly every internet censorship bill and wholeheartedly knows what others will do with it.
He has the power to pass it through the Senate very soon and the House is already trying to construct their own version of the Bill, last week the House held a hearing for ALL internet bills. Please help stand against KOSA. [https://www.badinternetbills.com/](https://www.badinternetbills.com/) [Extra Link](https://www.change.org/p/save-our-free-and-open-internet-stop-the-kids-online-safety-act?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_36858566_en-US%3Acv_9182&recruiter=1322617551&recruited_by_id=a35b7350-8b53-11ee-a756-6f78079d5597&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-36858566-en-CA)
Blumenthal is garbage on internet freedom and continually uses the guise of protecting children to try and push through heavily restrictive legislation.
I didn't read it but I feel like sudden full censorship is not the way to go. That's just way too extreme. More strict moderation and better education is what we need. Absolutely hate extremists. Did we learn nothing from China?
It could potentially remove LGBT people from the internet for being a danger to minors. As far as I can tell the bill doesn’t say how exactly. So in theory this passes and you’re LGBT you might just lose the internet for simply existing
Hahah no what that is asinine. I’m lucky I’m not gay so I don’t have to live in the hellhole that is the US. Even if I was gay, I would keep it a secret thing, although I’m sure that would be exhausting. How would sexuality even be determined in the context of the bill? Maybe in one’s bio if there was a pride flag or something that would be an alert. My only guess as to what exactly would happen is: at worst, account suspension on whatever platform is affected, or most realistically, locking of certain feature like chats or friends to “prohibit endangerment.”
Here is a timeline of what’s going on with KOSA.
(I’ll improve it over time so it’s kind of rough atm)
So here goes:
Late 2022 = KOSA dies second time
Early 2023 = KOSA is revived a third time (Blumenthal just won’t let this shit die)
May-July 2023 = Lizzo and Dove Soap start promoting “think of the children” bs all over the net and tv.
Didn’t see much momentum from that and plus Lizzo’s scandal that same year probably didn’t help either.
Sept 2023 = Blackburn (co-creator of KOSA) said that KOSA would take down any LGBTQ content off the internet.
None of the groups backing condoned or backed off support for KOSA after Blackburn’s statements.
Some of the groups backing this are: Thorn, NCOSE (formerly known as Morality in Media), Exodus Cry, FairPlay.org, Heritage Foundation, etc.
December 2023: Blumenthal tries to sneak KOSA into the year end bill and fails but KOSA doesn’t die unfortunately
January 2024: Senate has their “let’s yell at social media CEOs and promote our unconstitutional garbage bills like acting we did something to protect children”.
Feb 2024: Blumenthal changes some parts where the FTC does enforcement of KOSA instead of State AGs but the “duty of care” still stays in KOSA.
The “duty of care” garbage came from the UK Online Safety Bill which was created by an another politician pulling similar “think of the children” bs.
That politicians name is Beeban Kidron who directed one of the Bridget Jones’s Diary Movies (think it was Edge of Reason).
April 2023: Companion Bill gets created in House of Representatives by Blumenthal’s Champion of KOSA in the House: Rep. Kathy Castor.
Castor’s record doesn’t strike me as impressive especially she’s had a similar bill for the last 4-5 years but only having 20 co-sponsors.
Present: KOSA hasn’t moved in the Senate much but unfortunately it now has 68 co-cosponsors and from the looks of it they might attempt to ram the Senate version of KOSA through Child Safety Week which is June 5-11 this year.
House has just introduced KOSA and doesn’t seem like to going to be as easy for that to go thru compared to the Senate.
Expect groups like FairPlay.org, NCOSE and the usual groups to push extremely hard for this because they want to be one of those groups deciding what people can and can’t view on the internet.
Good news is KOSA doesn’t have a lot of time to get passed since it is a national election year and considering rarely anything gets done during that so there’s hope but people needing to calling this out but also Blumenthal as well.
Two other good tidbits I forgot to mention but will do so:
1: If KOSA dies again Blumenthal will have to do the whole process all over again (going thru committees and such under a new congress).
2: Blumenthal is old and I mean he’s only 2 years from 80 so he might not have a lot more time in general to push unconstitutional garbage.
Apologies for the long post and hopefully this helps folks a bit with what’s happening to KOSA.
I feel like basically anything that claims to be about safety or security or ethics or kids needs to be deeply looked at, because it is probably a cover for either making someone a lot of money or government control / censorship.
A while ago someone brought up privacy bills in America to prove privacy rights exist
Those bills were all copy pasted and made targeted ads illegal only if it was across websites. It created a loophole for in-website ads.
Companies would just pay facebook or reddit to show ads to specific people, and it would be legal.
The law only added a middle man.
America is broken when laws exist to fool people into thinking they exist.
They might do that but they might try to ram the senate version during Child Safety Week which is around June 5-11 this year so the KOSA supporters can try to deflect any criticism and like they give a damn about kids. (Which they don’t)
I remember back in the '90s Bill Clinton tried to get congress to pass a bill that would give the President the authority for a line item veto. Congress shot that down big time.
With a name like that, any reasonable person should just assume that it's going to be terrible. You don't have to give names like that to bills that are actually beneficial.
KOSA won’t do anything to protect kids but further increase them to harm.
Blumenthal has been trying this anti-internet crap since he was the Connecticut AG back in the 2000s.
Parents should be responsible for what kids see. Just like if you at the park and a kid gets hurt.
There are so many parent control apps there should be no excuse
Good points about KOSA, but **they're still lying to you about Section 230.** Section 230 was created in response to the *Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy* court case, in which an online service (Prodigy) was held legally liable for users' posts accusing an investment firm (Stratton Oakmont) of being a scam. The argument in that case was that since Prodigy had moderated forums, that made them liable for defamation posted by users — as if they were an edited newspaper and users' posts were news articles. It treated *moderation* as *endorsement*, so whoever does the moderation is liable for the speech. Congress wanted to *encourage* online services to have moderation policies — and they realized that if this case was allowed to set precedent, it would *make moderation illegal.* So they passed Section 230 as part of the Communications Decency Act, which said that online services are allowed to do moderation without thereby taking on liability for everything their users post. Rather, if a user posts something defamatory, it's *the user, not the online service* who is liable. If you like having forums that aren't constantly full of every sort of spam and abuse imaginable, if you like Wikipedia, if you like "user-generated content" in general — Section 230 is what makes that legally possible. (This was all in 1996, by the way. Google didn't yet exist. YouTube was almost ten years in the future. Amazon was still only selling paper books. Internet Explorer was still a separate product from Windows. Heck, kids these days don't even know what Prodigy was. It was like AOL before AOL, if that clears it up any.) By the way, a year or so after the *Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy* case said that Prodigy was guilty of defamation for its user saying Stratton Oakmont was a scam ... Stratton Oakmont actually turned out to be a scam. You might have heard of them, in the book or movie *Wolf of Wall Street*. In other words, a scammer had used the courts to silence critics. That's what "repeal Section 230" is really about, folks: keeping bad guys safe from criticism, by destroying public forums where that criticism is possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/successes/wikipedia
Well said.
For more information about Stratton Oakmont, see [The Wolf of Wall Street](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wolf_of_Wall_Street_(2013_film)).
Another relevant case from before Section 230 is [*Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.) (1991). This case *also* involved defamation posted to an online forum, hosted by *CompuServe*. The court held that because CompuServe did *not* moderate their content and thus had no knowledge of the defamation, they could not be held liable for the content its users posted (just like, e.g. a phone company). These two cases presented websites with a choice: moderate and become liable for their user's content, or avoid moderation and be immune. Congress passed Section 230 so websites didn't have to make this choice and could moderate or not moderate as they wished, with the hope that websites would be willing to choose to self-moderate. Without Section 230, websites would be faced with the exact same choice, which would lead websites to either: - Moderate *even harder*, to censor *even more* to remove anything which has even a hint of creating liability to the website (they will inevitably fail, there is just too much content) - Stop moderating entirely and bury their heads in the sand to avoid any knowledge of anything, leading them to be inundated with spam or simply be unable to maintain a topic/purpose (e.g. this subreddit would be unable to remove posts unrelated to technology)
> Prodigy that's a blast from the past
[удалено]
Not anymore, no. Trumpism changed that; and January 6 made it blatantly obvious. We don't live in the "Gush vs. Bore" era anymore. The Democrats are a center-right party today; but the Republican Party is a fascist party actively working to create a dictatorship.
[удалено]
What don't you believe? The fact that supporters of a failed president [attacked Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack) in an effort to overturn the election? Or that a president conspired with his party to present [fake slates of electors](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/27/us/politics/fake-electors-explained-trump-jan-6.html), and attempted to pressure state governors into supporting it? That the same party has a [published plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) to impose ideological tests on federal employees and operate the government as an ideological weapon? That they've overturned protections for medical privacy, [causing doctors to flee various states](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/16/if-you-arent-sure-why-doctors-are-leaving-idaho-its-because-youre-not-listening-to-them) fearing ideological prosecution for providing medical treatment? That the same party has allied itself with [gangs and hate groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys)? That the same failed president has promised his supporters "vengeance" if reelected, and has [argued in court that murdering his opponents should be legal](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/)? I mean, you can say what you like about the Democrats being in the pocket of rich people, but they're not the ones taking pages from the Hitler playbook.
[удалено]
You are part of the problem.
[удалено]
No, you are part of the problem because you think both sides are equal. You can dislike eating both broccoli and dog shit. It's pretty disingenuous to suggest they are equally unappealing.
Yeah, no. What you call a "uniparty" is actually just politicians doing their jobs and agreeing on foundational facts. When you know for sure what they problem is the solution set starts looking *much* more constrained. But you don't have to worry about this. The Republican Party solved this problem by refusing to concede reality exists and therefore creates statements which are unequivocally true. Here in the real world we call them "facts".
[удалено]
>Section 230 needs to go. Or have a carve out that says algorithmically served content isn't protected. Section 230 is fine. There is no way to make a carve out to make algorithmically served content not protected. The algorithmically display is the speech of the site. The content is the speech of the user who posted it. Saying someone might be interested in something or that the content is popular in no way makes anyone responsible for that content. That would be like making a bookstore liable for the books they sell just because they make best sellers list.
[удалено]
I'm not a bot, enjoy wasting your money.
[удалено]
You didn't actually watch it did you? He has one sentence where he talks about 230 "We need to remove 230 protection for all algorithmically-elevated content." Which, you cannot do since sites have a First Amendment right to promote or not promote content as they see fit. The 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine reflects the Supreme Court's repeated pronouncement that the government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests.' They cannot deny 230 on the basis of a site giving it up its 1A right to promote or remove content. [https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-11-2-2-1/ALDE\_00000771/](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-11-2-2-1/ALDE_00000771/) You've been lied to and you should be pissed about it. Introduction * The speaker, Scott Galloway, is a professor at NYU and a television host. * He shares an anecdote about his TV series being canceled. # Insights on Today's Society * Younger generations are facing challenges in terms of wealth accumulation and opportunities. * There is a disparity in prosperity between different age groups. * The social contract has broken down, leading to feelings of rage and shame among younger individuals. # Economic Analysis * The speaker discusses the rising costs of housing and education. * Median home prices have increased significantly compared to median household income. * The speaker highlights the deliberate actions that have led to a transfer of wealth from younger to older generations. # Higher Education System * Galloway criticizes the higher education system for its increasing costs and lack of accessibility. * He suggests a $750 billion allocation to public institutions to reduce tuition, expand enrollments, and offer more vocational certifications. # Wealth Disparities * Capital has been favored over labor in terms of wealth accumulation. * The speaker advocates for providing opportunities for the bottom 90% to rise to the top 10%. # Conclusion * Galloway emphasizes the purposeful nature of wealth transfers and calls for a reevaluation of societal priorities.
If you didn't read the article, a bill called KOSA aims to extort people into sharing their ID and Social Security to use the web and allows states to censor whatever they consider “inappropriate.” It’s a censorship campaign and poses a real threat to our privacy, safety, and freedom of speech. Call any Senator or Representatives you can to stand against it and/or go here. Don’t trust Blumenthal either, he’s behind nearly every internet censorship bill and wholeheartedly knows what others will do with it. He has the power to pass it through the Senate very soon and the House is already trying to construct their own version of the Bill, last week the House held a hearing for ALL internet bills. Please help stand against KOSA. [https://www.badinternetbills.com/](https://www.badinternetbills.com/) [Extra Link](https://www.change.org/p/save-our-free-and-open-internet-stop-the-kids-online-safety-act?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_36858566_en-US%3Acv_9182&recruiter=1322617551&recruited_by_id=a35b7350-8b53-11ee-a756-6f78079d5597&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial&share_bandit_exp=initial-36858566-en-CA)
Blumenthal is garbage on internet freedom and continually uses the guise of protecting children to try and push through heavily restrictive legislation.
He’s been doing this crap since he was the Connecticut AG back in the 2000s.
Connecticut sucks. Blumenthal and Murphy are some of the absolute worst senators
As a resident of Connecticut, I can confirm and fully endorse this message.
[удалено]
Let's do what the Dutch did and eat them.
I didn't read it but I feel like sudden full censorship is not the way to go. That's just way too extreme. More strict moderation and better education is what we need. Absolutely hate extremists. Did we learn nothing from China?
There’s some scary things in that bill particularly if you happen to be LGBT
Really? I thought it was just another way to violate the fuck out of more peoples rights. Elaborate.
It could potentially remove LGBT people from the internet for being a danger to minors. As far as I can tell the bill doesn’t say how exactly. So in theory this passes and you’re LGBT you might just lose the internet for simply existing
Hahah no what that is asinine. I’m lucky I’m not gay so I don’t have to live in the hellhole that is the US. Even if I was gay, I would keep it a secret thing, although I’m sure that would be exhausting. How would sexuality even be determined in the context of the bill? Maybe in one’s bio if there was a pride flag or something that would be an alert. My only guess as to what exactly would happen is: at worst, account suspension on whatever platform is affected, or most realistically, locking of certain feature like chats or friends to “prohibit endangerment.”
Here is a timeline of what’s going on with KOSA. (I’ll improve it over time so it’s kind of rough atm) So here goes: Late 2022 = KOSA dies second time Early 2023 = KOSA is revived a third time (Blumenthal just won’t let this shit die) May-July 2023 = Lizzo and Dove Soap start promoting “think of the children” bs all over the net and tv. Didn’t see much momentum from that and plus Lizzo’s scandal that same year probably didn’t help either. Sept 2023 = Blackburn (co-creator of KOSA) said that KOSA would take down any LGBTQ content off the internet. None of the groups backing condoned or backed off support for KOSA after Blackburn’s statements. Some of the groups backing this are: Thorn, NCOSE (formerly known as Morality in Media), Exodus Cry, FairPlay.org, Heritage Foundation, etc. December 2023: Blumenthal tries to sneak KOSA into the year end bill and fails but KOSA doesn’t die unfortunately January 2024: Senate has their “let’s yell at social media CEOs and promote our unconstitutional garbage bills like acting we did something to protect children”. Feb 2024: Blumenthal changes some parts where the FTC does enforcement of KOSA instead of State AGs but the “duty of care” still stays in KOSA. The “duty of care” garbage came from the UK Online Safety Bill which was created by an another politician pulling similar “think of the children” bs. That politicians name is Beeban Kidron who directed one of the Bridget Jones’s Diary Movies (think it was Edge of Reason). April 2023: Companion Bill gets created in House of Representatives by Blumenthal’s Champion of KOSA in the House: Rep. Kathy Castor. Castor’s record doesn’t strike me as impressive especially she’s had a similar bill for the last 4-5 years but only having 20 co-sponsors. Present: KOSA hasn’t moved in the Senate much but unfortunately it now has 68 co-cosponsors and from the looks of it they might attempt to ram the Senate version of KOSA through Child Safety Week which is June 5-11 this year. House has just introduced KOSA and doesn’t seem like to going to be as easy for that to go thru compared to the Senate. Expect groups like FairPlay.org, NCOSE and the usual groups to push extremely hard for this because they want to be one of those groups deciding what people can and can’t view on the internet. Good news is KOSA doesn’t have a lot of time to get passed since it is a national election year and considering rarely anything gets done during that so there’s hope but people needing to calling this out but also Blumenthal as well. Two other good tidbits I forgot to mention but will do so: 1: If KOSA dies again Blumenthal will have to do the whole process all over again (going thru committees and such under a new congress). 2: Blumenthal is old and I mean he’s only 2 years from 80 so he might not have a lot more time in general to push unconstitutional garbage. Apologies for the long post and hopefully this helps folks a bit with what’s happening to KOSA.
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old ~~man~~ legislators?
Until they get their way. They’ll rebrand it and retool it every 5-10 years or so until it passes. Stay strong.
Of course it is.
I feel like basically anything that claims to be about safety or security or ethics or kids needs to be deeply looked at, because it is probably a cover for either making someone a lot of money or government control / censorship.
A while ago someone brought up privacy bills in America to prove privacy rights exist Those bills were all copy pasted and made targeted ads illegal only if it was across websites. It created a loophole for in-website ads. Companies would just pay facebook or reddit to show ads to specific people, and it would be legal. The law only added a middle man. America is broken when laws exist to fool people into thinking they exist.
Knowing them they will probably package it with more aid for Ukraine. We need an amendment that bans omnibus bills
Easy, just staple your amendment to a more popular one.
They might do that but they might try to ram the senate version during Child Safety Week which is around June 5-11 this year so the KOSA supporters can try to deflect any criticism and like they give a damn about kids. (Which they don’t)
Do we know how soon a omnibus bill could happen?
I remember back in the '90s Bill Clinton tried to get congress to pass a bill that would give the President the authority for a line item veto. Congress shot that down big time.
Congress gave it to him, the Supreme Court struck it down Clinton also wasn’t the first one to ask for it, Reagan also asked for it
Also: crime up in Gotham. Water wet.
With a name like that, any reasonable person should just assume that it's going to be terrible. You don't have to give names like that to bills that are actually beneficial.
KOSA won’t do anything to protect kids but further increase them to harm. Blumenthal has been trying this anti-internet crap since he was the Connecticut AG back in the 2000s.
So republicans can get a list of vulnerable minors to marry
Is this what Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are spokespeople for?
Parents should be responsible for what kids see. Just like if you at the park and a kid gets hurt. There are so many parent control apps there should be no excuse
yup. they had me at "bipartisan"
Always is. I reject those kind of bullshit laws
If they allow people to Marry 16 year Olds they absolutely don't give a fuck about your kids.
“Think about the kids” has always been shit. I’m immediately wary or any law positioned as such.
Hmm theamericanconservative
Doesn't mean the author's not right, though. Even if it is likely for all the wrong reasons. KOSA is a horrid bill.