this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
315 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37707 readers
219 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
315
Stop KOSA. Why the KOSA Bill is Dangerous and Should be Rejected (www.stopkosa.com)
submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

KOSA is a bill that aims to protect children online but it would do so in harmful ways. First, it would pressure platforms to install content filters that would censor large amounts of content, including important suicide prevention and LGBTQ+ support resources. Content filters have a history of overblocking important information. Second, KOSA would ramp up online surveillance of all users by expanding age verification and parental monitoring tools. These tools are unnecessarily invasive and pose risks to young people trying to escape abuse. Over 90 rights groups agree that KOSA is dangerous and cannot be fixed through amendments. If you value a free and open internet, contact your lawmakers to reject KOSA.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 76 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"Protect the children" is the new "fight terror". Big empty phrases that only end up taking away rights and targeting minorities.

[–] Erk@cdda.social 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

True, but not new. It's been this since before "fight terror" in fact.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's coined as the "Helen Lovejoy Syndrome" after a Simpson's episode from the nineties.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

Won't somebody please think of the children?

[–] storksforlegs@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, true. I guess its more of a shitty comeback, worse than before.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.ninja 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"The war on drugs" has entered the chat

[–] Erk@cdda.social 1 points 1 year ago

Won't someone please think of the children?!

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If I recall correctly, that began because white men were afraid that non-white men would rape their wives. I'm not exactly sure how banning drugs was supposed to help, though.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Always has been.

Mighty convenient how so many of these "protect the children" groups end up with kiddie diddlers on staff.

https://news.yahoo.com/alabama-anti-abortion-advocate-charged-190424945.html

[–] prole@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

Possibly even worse since it's very often used as a cover for CSA. Not just minorities in this case that are being harmed, we're talking about literal children. It's fucking horrific.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago

"Fight terror" has only really be an excuse since 9/11. Before they had others including protecting children. Only the anti-trans stuff is newish.