Wait, Democrats AND Republicans, and it's named the Kids Online Safety Act....
Yeah it'll fuck over the American public, just like the patriot act or obamacare, you can't trust the government with these issues.
I terms of censoring LGBTWHATEVER content, I'm fine with age gating it so it isn't pushed on kids, but that should both be the rating agency and parents responsibility in content curation.
Wait, Democrats AND Republicans, and it's named the Kids Online Safety Act....
Yeah, all of that is a huge red flag.
Also, reminder, it's not the government's job to give us safety, it's their job to protect rights. Almost any "safety" bill is going to be authoritarian nonsense. Especially kid safety. Especially internet safety. I'm just surprised that not trying to take the guns too (that I know of, haven't read it), I suppose that's for a different bill.
Every single government is a gang of thugs with a monopoly on violence over a specific territory. That's it, nothing more. Sometimes that gang can be on your side, oftentimes they're mostly on their own side, and sometimes they can be downright bastards.
Lets not push delusional ideas about "protecting rights" or whatever.
As far as censorship -- I think it's reasonable and correct to flag any game that promotes sexual deviancy (whether it's a character or a flag) as MA or equivalent rating. Beyond that parents can take some responsibility.
Lets not push delusional ideas about "protecting rights" or whatever.
I'm saying that's their ideal purpose. Government is also ideally a tool, and should be stopped from becoming too powerful of a gang...we obviously failed on that front this time around. But in an actually representational system, yes, the government should be protecting rights.
As far as censorship -- I think it's reasonable and correct to flag any game that promotes sexual deviancy (whether it's a character or a flag) as MA or equivalent rating. Beyond that parents can take some responsibility.
It should all be on the parents. Any time the government gets involved, shit gets messy. Any rating system should be voluntary, with a nongovernment oversight committee or something. Because, as you said, the government often ends up with too much power, so them getting involved is ripe for abuse, no matter how good the goals sound.
Hell, even if this is claiming to hold big tech accountable, I think we should know when it's just someone using a cause like that just for their own agenda.
I'm not fine with LGBTwhatever content. anywhere, for any reason. it's anti-human, anti-polite society, and anti-decency. faggots should feel profound shame and isolation for being a faggot in public.
I think it's kinda sad, really, since it reminds me of all the parents complaining about their kids having "Skibidi Toilet Syndrome" after leaving their kids with Ipads and wanting the series kicked off youtube rather than making sure themselves their kids aren't being exploited for content farms or even just not letting the kids use the app without them to watch them.
that should both be the rating agency and parents responsibility in content curation.
Excuse me, we're not talking about fantasy violence. Let me present a scenario: is it alright for a parent, under their prerogative, to repeatedly show hardcore pornography to their child? Would anyone have a problem with that not being legal?
I believe there is a place for law to forbid what has been proven to corrupt. You can't prove much with fantasy violence, but there's much argument to make about sexual degeneracy.
it alright for a parent, under their prerogative, to repeatedly show hardcore pornography to their child?
No? But we used to publicly beat those parents and put their kids with a safer relative, typically grandparents or aunts and uncles.
The problem is that it has been shown thoughout history, giving the government the right to make laws that supercede parents responsibilities will ALWAYS be misused and abused. It'd be the definition of insanity to expect NOW the governments will suddenly be able to do their jobs and keep kids safe if we gave them this authority.
If we're talking about realistic scenarios, nobody's taking parents outside and beating them for ruining their kids. On the contrary, we're moving quickly towards an era of celebrating post-birth abortion.
Yeah it's all coming together.
Let the LGBTQAVFD+ nonsense off the leash for a few years, let groomers near children, and then come to the rescue with full on internet censorship. The real prize.
this is hegelian dialectic. problem reaction solution... a common trick to employ to make people swallow things they normally wont... and it works because people dont pay attention, then again with life grinding one down its hard to find the energy.
Yours is the third top comment in a row saying so. This comment section is so relieving. Thank you (and everyone else) for having brains and sharing your opinions.
I doubt Nintendo gives a fuck either way. They're probably more interested in this part:
any feature or component of a covered platform that will encourage or increase the frequency, time spent, or activity of minors on the covered platform, or activity of minors on the covered platform.
Design features include but are not limited to
(A) infinite scrolling or auto play;
(B) rewards for time spent on the platform;
(C) notifications;
(D) personalized recommendation systems;
(E) in-game purchases; or
(F) appearance altering filters.
If they can get consoles exempted because of their extremely walled-garden nature, it's a move to eliminate mobile as a competitor.
But just on principle, any propsal that:
Lets the government dictate how an app is designed
Allow the government to dictate what can be published
Erodes anonymity online
Is an instant hard no. It doesn't matter if the people they're censoring are ones who fucking deserve it. Absolutely not.
Regulatory Capture is a time-honored bribery lobbying tradition. Make it difficult and expensive for newcomers to meet all the government requirements basically creates a government protected industry.
Sounds like a bill to give the FTC, unelected federal government body, backdoor access to control apps, and social mecia platforms in the name of children's safety.
They love to invoke the safety of children to pass their unconstitutional bullshit. Any time you see "child"/"kids" combined with the word "bipartisan" you can bet on exactly what type of move it is.
The two fake halves of our monoparty can only ever unite to give tax dollars to international jews and to denigrate the freedoms and living conditions of everyday citizens.
I say this all as a "racist homophobic yada yada yada" man, too. Having rights is more important to me than pwning the gays (or women, or blacks, or even Them), because all our society needs to repel unwanted aspects of our culture is freedom to dissent against them. Freedom is ugly and combative, it is essentially a collection of conditions that are necessary in order to fight.
A bipartisan group will take away what little is left of our ability to fight by telling you they are pwning a group you hate for the sake of the children. They change the nouns depending on who they are marketing their deception to at the time and that noun-swap composes the absolute entirety of the range of choice that our electoral system provides to us in America.
I saw a libertarian meme the other day that should a gift wrapping station with two wrappings, National Security and Protect the Children, and the attendant asking which paper they should use to wrap the new proposed bill in?
Essentially it forces websites to serve as law enforcement.
That's never a good thing. Besides literally being a tenant of communism (having private businesses do the government's dirty work), it will also make it incredibly difficult for a new platform to start, or an existing, small platform to not be torn down.
It is not a social media company's job to prevent bad things from happening on their site. That is the job of law enforcement, who have to operate within the confines of the constitution. When they push these measures, they're literally doing it as a way to get around constitutional restrictions.
And, yes, sometimes there are crimes that cannot be prevented within the confines of the constitution. Those are the price we pay for freedom.
Actually this does sound like censorship of the internet. Not sure why Nintendo is involved though. It has its uses to deal with the rash of anti semitism that has erupted though.
Wait, Democrats AND Republicans, and it's named the Kids Online Safety Act....
Yeah it'll fuck over the American public, just like the patriot act or obamacare, you can't trust the government with these issues.
I terms of censoring LGBTWHATEVER content, I'm fine with age gating it so it isn't pushed on kids, but that should both be the rating agency and parents responsibility in content curation.
Yeah, all of that is a huge red flag.
Also, reminder, it's not the government's job to give us safety, it's their job to protect rights. Almost any "safety" bill is going to be authoritarian nonsense. Especially kid safety. Especially internet safety. I'm just surprised that not trying to take the guns too (that I know of, haven't read it), I suppose that's for a different bill.
Every single government is a gang of thugs with a monopoly on violence over a specific territory. That's it, nothing more. Sometimes that gang can be on your side, oftentimes they're mostly on their own side, and sometimes they can be downright bastards.
Lets not push delusional ideas about "protecting rights" or whatever.
As far as censorship -- I think it's reasonable and correct to flag any game that promotes sexual deviancy (whether it's a character or a flag) as MA or equivalent rating. Beyond that parents can take some responsibility.
I'm saying that's their ideal purpose. Government is also ideally a tool, and should be stopped from becoming too powerful of a gang...we obviously failed on that front this time around. But in an actually representational system, yes, the government should be protecting rights.
It should all be on the parents. Any time the government gets involved, shit gets messy. Any rating system should be voluntary, with a nongovernment oversight committee or something. Because, as you said, the government often ends up with too much power, so them getting involved is ripe for abuse, no matter how good the goals sound.
Hell, even if this is claiming to hold big tech accountable, I think we should know when it's just someone using a cause like that just for their own agenda.
I'm not fine with LGBTwhatever content. anywhere, for any reason. it's anti-human, anti-polite society, and anti-decency. faggots should feel profound shame and isolation for being a faggot in public.
I think it's kinda sad, really, since it reminds me of all the parents complaining about their kids having "Skibidi Toilet Syndrome" after leaving their kids with Ipads and wanting the series kicked off youtube rather than making sure themselves their kids aren't being exploited for content farms or even just not letting the kids use the app without them to watch them.
Excuse me, we're not talking about fantasy violence. Let me present a scenario: is it alright for a parent, under their prerogative, to repeatedly show hardcore pornography to their child? Would anyone have a problem with that not being legal?
I believe there is a place for law to forbid what has been proven to corrupt. You can't prove much with fantasy violence, but there's much argument to make about sexual degeneracy.
No? But we used to publicly beat those parents and put their kids with a safer relative, typically grandparents or aunts and uncles.
The problem is that it has been shown thoughout history, giving the government the right to make laws that supercede parents responsibilities will ALWAYS be misused and abused. It'd be the definition of insanity to expect NOW the governments will suddenly be able to do their jobs and keep kids safe if we gave them this authority.
If we're talking about realistic scenarios, nobody's taking parents outside and beating them for ruining their kids. On the contrary, we're moving quickly towards an era of celebrating post-birth abortion.
While that's true, this law is way too broad and would cover things that should be up to parental discretion. (and beyond)
The title alone should tell you its censorship, I dont even need to read it to know that. "protect the children" AND it has bipartisan support...
Yeah it's all coming together. Let the LGBTQAVFD+ nonsense off the leash for a few years, let groomers near children, and then come to the rescue with full on internet censorship. The real prize.
this is hegelian dialectic. problem reaction solution... a common trick to employ to make people swallow things they normally wont... and it works because people dont pay attention, then again with life grinding one down its hard to find the energy.
Yours is the third top comment in a row saying so. This comment section is so relieving. Thank you (and everyone else) for having brains and sharing your opinions.
Exactly. There's nothing the government can do to protect your kids that you, as a parent, could do if they got out of your way.
"We need to keep children safe"
"Why you hate the LGBBQ"
Everytime...
Bonus: muh internet censorship community note
Now you care? How convenient
At least Community notes are helping.
I doubt Nintendo gives a fuck either way. They're probably more interested in this part:
If they can get consoles exempted because of their extremely walled-garden nature, it's a move to eliminate mobile as a competitor.
But just on principle, any propsal that:
Is an instant hard no. It doesn't matter if the people they're censoring are ones who fucking deserve it. Absolutely not.
Regulatory Capture is a time-honored
briberylobbying tradition. Make it difficult and expensive for newcomers to meet all the government requirements basically creates a government protected industry.Sounds like a bill to give the FTC, unelected federal government body, backdoor access to control apps, and social mecia platforms in the name of children's safety.
Here's the government page on the bill
https://archive.ph/FmSmt
I'll also add that originally the bill gave state attorneys executive enforcement, the new amendment gives the authority to the FTC.
I don't like censorship in any way, and this thing seems to be a veiled censorship bill just by the title alone.
They love to invoke the safety of children to pass their unconstitutional bullshit. Any time you see "child"/"kids" combined with the word "bipartisan" you can bet on exactly what type of move it is.
The two fake halves of our monoparty can only ever unite to give tax dollars to international jews and to denigrate the freedoms and living conditions of everyday citizens.
I say this all as a "racist homophobic yada yada yada" man, too. Having rights is more important to me than pwning the gays (or women, or blacks, or even Them), because all our society needs to repel unwanted aspects of our culture is freedom to dissent against them. Freedom is ugly and combative, it is essentially a collection of conditions that are necessary in order to fight.
A bipartisan group will take away what little is left of our ability to fight by telling you they are pwning a group you hate for the sake of the children. They change the nouns depending on who they are marketing their deception to at the time and that noun-swap composes the absolute entirety of the range of choice that our electoral system provides to us in America.
I saw a libertarian meme the other day that should a gift wrapping station with two wrappings, National Security and Protect the Children, and the attendant asking which paper they should use to wrap the new proposed bill in?
Alyson Rapp the NintendHoe E-wh0re.
Wrote pedo-apologist documents.
She also pimped her boyfriend.
Maybe fucking archive shit from these kinds of people, OP?
Why did 3 people upvote a comment seeing it was deleted but nobody downvoted the post linked to nothing?
This bill is fucked.
Essentially it forces websites to serve as law enforcement.
That's never a good thing. Besides literally being a tenant of communism (having private businesses do the government's dirty work), it will also make it incredibly difficult for a new platform to start, or an existing, small platform to not be torn down.
It is not a social media company's job to prevent bad things from happening on their site. That is the job of law enforcement, who have to operate within the confines of the constitution. When they push these measures, they're literally doing it as a way to get around constitutional restrictions.
And, yes, sometimes there are crimes that cannot be prevented within the confines of the constitution. Those are the price we pay for freedom.
The EFF is so leftist.
"For the kids safety act".
Guaranteed it is filled with a bunch of nefarious shit just like Stop Online Piract Act and PIPA
oh no not the HECKIN faggerinos
Only thing i can think of is to have parental lock over voice chat that requires a pin number to unlock. And leave everyone else alone.
Actually this does sound like censorship of the internet. Not sure why Nintendo is involved though. It has its uses to deal with the rash of anti semitism that has erupted though.
"..."
"..."
Sucks to be them I guess....
its. only. a. tiny. thing. why. do. you. care?