Any time a bill claims to be about protecting children, 10/10 times it’s actually hiding something more sinister that has nothing to do with that. I don’t trust this.
You’d be right in this case too. It’s extremely sketchy, it’s pretty much absolute censorship power with only an informal promise that it won’t be used for anything nefarious (but a refusal to actually codify anything preventing that). “Harmful content” is left very conveniently vague.
The Crypto Wars have never ended. Governments dream of a world without public access to encryption and privacy. And many government attacks on encryption are done “for the children”.
It just addresses some stuff that legit sounds nice out of context, and it’s also covered in the “protect the children” package, so if you’re not voting on it, you want to put the children into danger. Same with the Hungarian anti-LGBT bill.
Any time a bill claims to be about protecting children, 10/10 times it’s actually hiding something more sinister that has nothing to do with that. I don’t trust this.
You’d be right in this case too. It’s extremely sketchy, it’s pretty much absolute censorship power with only an informal promise that it won’t be used for anything nefarious (but a refusal to actually codify anything preventing that). “Harmful content” is left very conveniently vague.
Can you elaborate on that claim? I couldn’t find anything substantial in the article.
if they decide that treating the “transgendereds” like people is “harmful to children” then it’ll be banned.
The Crypto Wars have never ended. Governments dream of a world without public access to encryption and privacy. And many government attacks on encryption are done “for the children”.
It just addresses some stuff that legit sounds nice out of context, and it’s also covered in the “protect the children” package, so if you’re not voting on it, you want to put the children into danger. Same with the Hungarian anti-LGBT bill.