this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
-4 points (16.7% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7328 readers
58 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The bill isn't anti-lgbt, but it does give way too much power to the attorney general to decide what's harmful for children. That should be covered in the law, if at all.

But the worst part is that it strongly encourages companies to perform age verification, and given how often security breaches happen, that's just not something I'm comfortable with.

If parents want to protect their kids, they should do it themselves. There are Internet filters on the market (which I'm convinced don't work because kids will find a way around them), and the best option is to just... be a part of kids' lives and teach them how to be safe on the Internet. If you don't trust your kids on the Internet, don't give them smartphones or access to a computer.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The bill isn’t anti-lgbt, but it does give way too much power to the attorney general to decide what’s harmful for children. That should be covered in the law, if at all.

In effect it will be, which is the only thing that matters.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, the law itself isn't anti-lgbt, it just enables anti-lgbt people to abuse it.

The opposition shouldn't be that it's anti-lgbt, but that is anti-privacy.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

If it lets people use it to target the lgbtq+ community, and it is obvious that it will be, it is anti-lgbtq+. Things exist within the context they exist in.