Kids Online Safety Act will allow Attorney Generals to Censor the News.

*Attorneys General
- Culls deez sacks

I don't get it. Internet is media, just like books, TV, or movies. Media is full of fucked up shit. Everything from Mein Kampf to photos of dead bodies to adult novels. We've had things like that since forever, and we've always just left it to adults to prevent kids from seeing the bad things, until they're ready.
Why is it suddenly different for the internet?
- It's not different for the Internet. We've always had people that have been opposed to ideologies separate from their own. Book bans aren't anything new and neither are restrictions to free speech. Nazi book burnings and the US Red Scare are extreme examples of this. It's all a symptom of nationalism and ethnocentrism, just a different place/time/media. What really sucks is that the nationalists have a lot of power now all over the world, and we're slowly seeing the results of that.
  This isn't about saving the kids. This is about controlling the populous.
- Because the working class is rising up. Unions are coming back and people are tried of late stage capitalism extorting them

Sounds very similar to "The Patriot Act".
The title sounds great! Until you learn how the government leverages it to control citizens.
- The title, much like the Patriot Act, was very carefully engineered to maximize the social stigma of speaking against it.

Censorship is not the answer, stronger education always is.
- I think you are mistaken - censorship is the goal, kids are the excuse. If they really cared about kids safety there is a lot more they could be doing to actually protect them.

I think everyone can agree that child safety is important. But the fact internet as it stands is not safe for kids is completely undeniable.
As always, however, censorship is not the solution, especially not if it's headed by government. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is.
- We've had an answer since the Internet was created: don't let kids have unsupervised access to it.
  Instead we give toddlers tablets before they can read.
  It's inconsequential anyway. This bill was never really about kids in the first place.
  
  Also we need to acknowledge that age appropriate freedom for some ages of children means they get hurt sometimes. A 16 year old should have access to their town unsupervised for certain lengths of time. Most will be fine. Some will get hurt. Those without this freedom will have to learn how to function in that environment as an adult and are at similar risk of being hurt then because they’re stunted in that way.
  What we’ve been doing with the internet is the equivalent of never telling children about the dangers of their local area, what danger looks like, or how to get help if you’re in danger then letting 8 year olds wander around town without even checking in.
  Some of these freedoms are important. Things we may want to censor for good reason can give children the words to know what isn’t ok in their lives. That can range from “my parents shouldn’t be fighting all the time actually” to “this aspect of my body/mind is a symptom of something to check out” to “that adult shouldn’t behave that way to me” to “this aspect of me is actually a perfectly fine but uncommon trait”.
  The current internet is a funhouse mirror of reality for dopamine. When I was a kid we all knew movies were that. So we were taught what the idealized underweight for the time looked like and how unhealthy it was.
  I wholeheartedly endorse things like mandatory internet safety training in schools. Much like I think health classes should teach what a healthy and normal body looks like and can do. I tentatively endorse a way to set age recommendations and reasons so blockers can keep the 7 year olds away from porn, though I fear it will result in queer kids being blocked from factual information and teenagers being prevented from accessing good sex ed resources before making decisions regarding their sexual health.
  Censorship has a cost to everyone, and maybe mid moral panic isn’t the time to decide to censor things
  
  We’ve had an answer since the Internet was created: don’t let kids have unsupervised access to it.
  I'm very much against this bill, I don't even think it will help kids any, but lets admit that this is very much easier said than done. If we really mean to be honest, this is just something we say to mean "it's not our problem, don't bother us with it". But it's not a solved problem, even remotely.
  Assuming a moderately tech savvy parent, which is not a given, there are so many alternate ways to access sketchy content, and supposedly child-friendly platforms are so poorly moderated that very few parents can truly manage to control what their kids see. Even YouTube Kids and Roblox are full of stuff that shouldn't be there.
  Then there's the matter of longer and longer shifts that parents face today, and consequently the diminishing time they have to watch over their children. We also went from wired internet and a single shared household computer to everyone having smartphones and Wi-Fi in every corner. A parent can do everything right and their kid might still end up exposed to inappropriate content by their friend during recess because their parents didn't bother with any of it.
  I don't want the internet to be child-proofed or that this is used as an excuse for government overreach, but I don't envy parents who need to deal with this matter today.
- Parents can childproof their homes, buy car seats, etc.
  But when you say "child safety is important", all I hear is "the government needs to childproof the country", and all that means to those in power is "yes, more police state powers for me, thank you very much"
  I know that's not what you're intending, but when you give an inch, like your comment did, they'll take a mile. Don't give an inch.
  
  I appreciate the comment!
  If you've ever been a kid with stricter parents, you'll know that there's always a way around child-proofing. It's an unfortunate reality. Additionally, if you've ever been in a school, you'll know that if you add 'unblocked' to the end of your Google search, you'll find exactly what you wanted to find. Restrictions can only go so far. (Sorry, I don't mean this to sound snarky.)
  I believe there is a fine line between censorship and limited availability. For instance, many of the internet's 'big brother' algorithms will recommend suggestive content right off the bat. I think, (and this is my personal opinion) that larger services such as social media sites, search engines, etc. should be held responsible for the content that their platform shows to children. I definitely think that a little checkbox saying "I'm over 18" is a token effort at best.
  I'm conflicted on this matter, as I believe strongly in privacy and anonymity and in the open, collaborative nature of the Internet; but, on the other hand, allowing children unfettered access to said Internet has been proven to be a bad idea. So, I'm somewhat undecided on the issue as far as the role of government or the role of service providers.
  Parental roles are clear, however. Thanks for your comment ant have a lovely evening.
- Parenting. The solution is parenting.
- Censorship is fine as long as it's controlled exclusively by parents and caregivers. As soon a government, corporation, school, or any authority gets the slightest hint of control it always results in an abuse of power and manipulation.
  
  Until kids learn to bypass Net Nanny by using the Tor network.
  I think the system is broken, but my opinion isn't of much value as I don't have a solution for the problem. It's a classic debate question.
- I don't have the perfect solution either but I don't think some GOP shitstain from a state with less people than my city has it.
  Parents have to parent. I got kids myself and so far I have never felt the urge to censor stuff. I do discuss it with them and yes I generally know what they are looking at. Little bit of a tangent but my 9 year old asked if she could take a book out of the library about magical Jesus stories. I told her it is a silly book but if she wanted to she could.
  No, I don't think a 14 year old should be looking at hardcore porn. Yes I would be very unhappy if I found out my kids were on stromfront. All I think we can do is try to make them good people and accept the fact that there are dangerous stuff out there and they will have to face it one day.

We who live in red states salute you now, cuz if this act passes, shit show won’t even begin to describe what’s coming.