this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
-2 points (33.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8008 readers
156 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is what you get when you elect 80 year old boomers

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Its not an age thing, it's a class thing

[–] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's an age thing, old people have always been like this

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

Plenty of young people are like this too, my point is that transphobia is manufactured by capitalists to divide the proletariat and that's what they're doing right now.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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.