this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
476 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3779 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 165 points 1 year ago
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not the US government, republicans and one random house dem that seems to hate technology.

[–] knyuqlr@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

oMg boTh sIdeS aRe nOt tHe sAmE.... except for when it comes to eroding freedoms

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not the US government, republicans and one random house dem that seems to hate technology.

Whose the Dem?

[–] RustyShackleford@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

What about the other 20?

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MiscreantMouse@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

WTF then he isn't a Democrat if he co authoring bills with Graham.

[–] QubaXR@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Somehow it never crossed their minds to stop selling firearms to teens, but vendor Internet in the name of protecting kids? Sign us up. Fuck that.

Pretty much any bill, worldwide, that includes the phrase "project kids" is always about pushing censorship, government surveillance and other forms of oppression on everyone. And guess what: zero actual benefit to kids.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is quite scary. I don't know if it being on the calendar means they're guaranteed to vote on it but the text of the bill would completely fuck the Fediverse. You literally need paid personnel to comply with these regulations.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3663/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

[–] db2@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 year ago

Host somewhere else. They're not the world police.

[–] Bizarroland@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

I guess we'll just become criminals and host our servers in countries that actually respect freedom.

[–] whataboutshutup@discuss.online 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why old men are so obsessed with kids? Are they pedo or something?

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 1 year ago

It's never about kids. If they gave half a fuck about kids, we'd have free school lunches and teachers would be paid a fair salary.

So long as the internet is around to distribute fact-checks and officer-involved homicide videos they have no plausible lies by which the 80% of us in poverty or precarity should tolerate the abuse of plutocrats and capitalists.

So this is a first amendment issue: it's about suppression of political speech. It always was 🌍 👩‍🚀 🔫 👨‍🚀 🌑

[–] T156@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

They're a convenient scapegoat. You can accuse the other side of not caring about/endangering children for political points, and children don't have politically-relevant opinions, or votes, so you're never going to have children speaking up and going "that's not correct", or protesting against you for a law you've passed. If they do end up protesting, you can point fingers at the parents and say that they're indoctrinating the children.

[–] mPony@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

every time they say it's to "protect the children" or "protect freedom" it is invariably neither.

Perhaps politicians should concentrate on making it so there's less depressing stuff in the world for anyone to see and hear, and not creating more of it with things like this rubbish bill. 🤷‍♀️

[–] viliam@feddit.ch 24 points 1 year ago

Fine, so who will be judging if there's a depressive content on the internet, a psychologist? Also how about non-US sites, will they be banned or something?

[–] pglpm@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Culturally we're going back to the Middle Ages...

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Specifically the Dark Ages.

[–] ccf@ccf.sh 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] karrbs@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

Isn't this also the bill that could screw up encryption too?

[–] Xylight@lemmy.xylight.dev 18 points 1 year ago

woah no way

in other news, every sixty seconds in Africa, a minute passes.

[–] LexiconBexicon@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Knowing Biden he's all in on this, he signed off on the Patriot Act too so f*** him

neoliberals are just as bad as Republicans

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Neoliberals are conservatives. They go on the same smoldering pile.

[–] RobotToaster@infosec.pub 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

My god that's brilliant!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

it has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with destroying privacy

[–] bappity@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

why is it always the worst laws proposed under the guise of protecting children

[–] jantin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Because you can't argue that. Any other ground reason for policy can be challenged or counterargued or relies on values which are arguable.

No one is going to plainly argue "ok but how about we do not protect children?". And if someone tries a different angle such as "this law is not really going to protect anyone and will bring a lot of problems for children and adults alike" it will be easily dismissed as "you insidious snake, why do you want to hurt children?! Don't sabotage child protection!". Which autokills conversation.

[–] Natha@discuss.online 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't it something that China has been doing for a while? In their version, it's called 'spreading positive energy'.

[–] jsnc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

It's almost like everything the US said about China was just a projection of their own insecurities.

It might get to a point where China actually is relatively more liberating than "stable democracies" in internet access.

[–] hellfire103@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

What else is new?

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

This headline could have been written 20 years ago.

This doesn't seem different from what many if not most major platforms are already doing voluntarily. Just replace the word "depressing" with the word "toxic" and suddenly everyone will support this.

[–] iMastari@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Protect kids from guns would be better.

[–] EnderWi99in@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Jack O'Neil's son would still be alive today if he didn't get a hold of his father's gun. But then we wouldn't have Stargate. It's sort of a toss up to me.

load more comments
view more: next ›