Technology

60119 readers

2515 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

490

KOSA is dead! (US) (www.fightforthefuture.org)

submitted 4 months ago by thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/20332183

Fight for the Future writes:

"The controversial and unconstitutional Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is officially dead in the House of Representatives. Reporting indicates that there was significant opposition to the bill within the Republican caucus, and it faced vocal opposition from prominent progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rep Maxwell Frost (D-FL)."

Evan Greer:

"KOSA was a poorly written bill that would have made kids less safe. I am so proud of the LGBTQ youth and frontlines advocates who have led the opposition to this dangerous and misguided legislation. It’s good that this unconstitutional censorship bill is dead for now, but I am not breathing a sigh of relief. It’s infuriating that Congress wasted so much time and energy on a deeply flawed and controversial bill while failing to advance real measures to address the harms of Big Tech like privacy, antitrust and algorithmic justice legislation. "

Thanks to everybody who took action ove the last year to stop this bill!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 49 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The condensed version is that it creates a lot of avenues for a very loose definition of "keeping kids safe" that could easily include "information about dealing with bigoted family" being called "dangerous" at the discretion of an executive branch appointee who thinks that lgbtq identity is "unsafe".

It also provides more avenues for the government to remove otherwise legal speech from the Internet entirely on the grounds that they have asserted that it's "bad for children".
This is literally the long running joke about how you pass draconian laws, and would only be made more on the nose if it was "keeping patriotic kids online safe for the future tax cuts of American freedom"

In general, the government should not be able to silence speech that isn't immediately and unambiguously harmful.

[–] KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz 27 points 4 months ago

It also is written vaguely enough to justify attempts to block VPN access and other forms of anonymous media consumption. Basically under the guise that an anonymous user -could- be a child, so they need to be deanonymized and tracked.

[–] FiniteBanjo -4 points 4 months ago

Well the text does very specifically state it would trigger investigation of things that have caused harm, but yeah it's not worth the risk if the FTC decides what harm is.