https://apnews.com/article/senate-child-online-safety-vote-f27c329679feb2d74787fc3887aa710f
why cant the government just tell parents 
to keep their kids off the computer?
/h/slackernews
asshole
there/then
(>^.^(>O.○)>
4mo ago
(apnews.com)
Edited 4mo ago
748 thread views
#288205
The Senate 
is set to pass a 
bill designed to protect kids 
from dangerous online content 
| AP News
- 79
- 47
Top Poster of the Day:
Thirtythirst4sissies
Current Registered Users: 28,729
tech/science swag. 
Guidelines:
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good slackers would find interesting. That includes more than /g/ memes and slacking off. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual laziness.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably lame.
Help keep this hole healthy by keeping drama and NOT drama balanced. If you see too much drama, post something that isn't dramatic. If there isn't enough drama and this hole has become too boring, POST DRAMA!
In Submissions
Please do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is. It should be explicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
Please don't submit the original source. If the article is behind a paywall, just post the text. If a video is behind a paywall, post a magnet link. Fuck journos.
Please don't ruin the hole with chudposts. It isn't funny and doesn't belong here. THEY WILL BE MOVED TO /H/CHUDRAMA
If the title includes the name of the site, please leave that in, because our users are too stupid to know the difference between a url and a search query.
If you submit a video or pdf, please don't warn us by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title. That would be r-slurred. We're not using text-based browsers. We know what videos and pdfs are.
Make sure the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective. Good clickbait titles are like "Top 10 Ways to do X" or "Don't do these 4 things if you want X"
Otherwise editorialize. Please don't use the original title, unless it is gay or r-slurred, or you're shits all fucked up.
If you're going to post old news (at least 1 year old), please flair it so we can mock you for living under a rock, or don't and we'll mock you anyway.
Please don't post on SN to ask or tell us something. Send it to [email protected] instead.
If your post doesn't get enough traction, try to delete and repost it.
Please don't use SN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff occasionally, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity. If you want to astroturf or advertise, post on news.ycombinator.com instead.
Please solicit upvotes, comments, and submissions. Users are stupid and need to reminded to vote and interact. Thanks for the gold, kind stranger, upvotes to the left.
In Comments
Be snarky. Don't be kind. Have fun banter; don't be a dork. Please don't use big words like "fulminate". Please sneed at the rest of the community.
Comments should get more enlightened and centrist, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
If disagreeing, please reply to the argument and call them names. "1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be improved to "1 + 1 is 3, not 2, mathfaggot"
Please respond to the weakest plausible strawman of what someone says, not a stronger one that's harder to make fun of. Assume that they are bad faith actors.
Eschew jailbait. Paedophiles will be thrown in a wood chipper, as pertained by sitewide rules.
Please post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. All press is good press.
Please use Slacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples weak ideologies.
Please comment on whether someone read an article. If you don't read the article, you are a cute twink.
Please pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Don't nitpick stupid crap.
Please don't be an unfunny chud. Nobody cares about your opinion of X Unrelated Topic in Y Unrelated Thread. If you're the type of loser that belongs on /h/chudrama, we may exile you.
Sockpuppet accounts are encouraged, but please don't farm dramakarma.
Please use uppercase for emphasis.
Please post deranged conspiracy theories about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and dang will add you to their spam list.
Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, report it and our moderators will probably do nothing about it. Feed egregious comments by replying instead of flagging them like a pussy. Remember: If you flag, you're a cute twink.
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. That's too boring, even for HN users.
Please seethe about how your posts don't get enough upvotes.
Please don't post comments saying that rdrama is turning into ruqqus. It's a nazi dogwhistle, as old as the hills.
Miscellaneous:
The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality or funny effortposts and informative or entertaining comments. Please refrain from posting the following:
Boring wingcucked nonsense nobody cares about that belongs in chudrama
Normie shit everyone already knows about
Anything that doesn't gratifify one's intellectual laziness
Bimothy-tier posts
Anything that the jannies don't like
We reserve the right to exile you for whatever reason we want, even for no reason at all! We also reserve the right to change the guidelines at any time, so be sure to read them at least once a month. We also reserve the right to ignore enforcement of the guidelines at the discretion of the janitorial staff. This hole is a janny playground, participation implies enthusiastic consent to being janny abused by unstable alcoholic bullies and loser nerds who have nothing better to do than banning you for any reason or no reason whatsoever.
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
/h/slackernews SETTINGS /h/slackernews LOG /h/slackernews MODS /h/slackernews EXILEES /h/slackernews FOLLOWERS /h/slackernews BLOCKERS
Current software version: c889144
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I look forward to various parties who support this bill being horrified
when it's used to suppress things they like.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
HB-1337, The 2025 Protect Our Children From Satan's Libertarians Act
Sponsored by (R-IA) Holden Bloodfeast
First page: "Corporations must enable flimsy ID checks on website that are easily spoofed and effectively worthless at preventing children from accessing explicit content"
Second page: "$500 billion to Israel"
Third page: "The government has a God-given right to install cameras in your potty"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
imagine the smell-o-vision
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!metashit will this agegate marseycoin purchases?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
good thing i was born in january 1st, 1899
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you old as frick...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
whats the deal with rule 1?
!slots111
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I literally
don't see any issue with this.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Kids should be on government supervised internet until they're 18
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
kids shouldnt bebon the internet at all. Either way the government shouldnt be involved. The responsibilty should be on the parent not to neglwct their child.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's nothing wrong with the internet, it's social media that's the problem. Also probably unlimited access to the internet, when I was growing up you had only so many hours/data to use in a month.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Its wrong for kids to be on the internet bc they should be outside riding bikes or playing sports and if not that studying.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I edited my comment, but we used to have only so many hours/data per month so you couldn't spend all day online. Theres nothing wrong with the internet in moderation.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
sure, whatever the case the onus should be on the parents to decide what moderation is, not the government
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We don't leave it up to the parents to decide whether their child can use drugs, alcohol, or porn. The government already has an established interest in restricting harmful/addictive things from children regardless of how the parent feels about it.
We've all been on the internet long enough to see what repeated long time exposure to the internet/social media does to people and turns them into terminally online, paranoid schizo anti-social r-slurs. You probably know someone in real life that has altered their life trajectory because of this shit, or if we're really being honest we can see it in ourselves given where we are on this Reddit reject site surrounded by fellow r-slurs who have melted their brains.
Social Media is just another form of a drug given how it interacts with our brains and leads to addiction and it should be treated in the same way by the government as we treat other addictive vices.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If a parent lets their kid watch porn, drink or do drugs, then hold them accountable. I domlnt see pfizer, smirnoff, or brazers being held iable for parents letting their kids raid the liquor cabinet the pill box or the hustler. Also just bc the government can do something doesnt mean they should.
I dont think the government should regulate the internet, drugs, alcohol or pron, beyond holding adults liable for neglect if they dont supervise the kids properly. Dedtorying anonymity on the internet is an r-slured solution. If you think otherwise then youre a bootlicker. Thisnisnlike people who want to ban guns bc "think of the children". Would banning guns save childrens lives? yes, butt owning one is a findamental right, thebimportance of which outweighs safety and social harm. If safety was a chief concern theyd require children to wear helmets in the car a law which would save hundreds of childrens lives a year and would be easy to pass because driving isnt a right. They dont do that tho bc itd be verybunpopular and political suicide. I agree that internet is dangerous, butt eliminating parental responsibility is not the solution to protecting chikdren from it as it would give the governemnt far too much power to control free spwech on the web.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bro is yapping
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Sadly, I think most parents are too r-slurred to make that decision. I see so many parents pushing around what appear to be six year olds staring at smartphones/tablets in a stroller. That generation is completely fricked.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
by that logic the government should take custody of all children and raise them because you cant trust parenrs to do it right. This is the same logic
use to rationalize talking to children about their sexuality/gender identity without parental knowledge or consent. "the parents might be homophobic so the kod can only be their true selves at school!" 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I do think there should be birthing loicense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Wrong, they should be bullying the weak and using the internet to figure out how to make napalm and potato cannons
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
back in my day you could get books from the publicly library for all of that and more, plus you had to exercise in order to get said books.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Well you use it so there's one thing wrong
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm a positive, I only make valuable contributions. The real problem with the internet is the hordes of jeets that infest it now.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Most parents are r-slurred though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
and thats their problem. The government isnt your nanny.
!slots100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The government requires more and more better taken care of children as the number keeps decreasing to maintain quality.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The government only requires what we the people allow it. By your logic the government should raise children instead. Your logic is the same as teachers wanting to talk to children about s*x/gender without parwntal knowlwdge or consent. "they cant be their true selves at home bc their parents might be chuds."
move to europe or australia if thats what you want.
!slots100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it was a good try. you went 0-100 too fast on the irrationality though. The trick is to sound like someone who just has a slight misunderstanding then getting more and more absurd over the conversation.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The government should be seeing all of our internet history
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!slots123
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Check this guys computer
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I actually don't mind this bill nearly as much as I thought I would
At least it doesn't seem to have mandatory id scanning
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
how are the sites supposed to comply tho? Theyll probably do ID scanning just to be safe, especially when nanny states like Florida and North Carolina already require that for their own internet censorship bills
!slots100
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Does it include ID scanning?
I haven't read the actual bill bc I'm not a fricking
nerd but self ID seems like it would 
work fine here, and that's how basically every other "child mode" of every online 
service 
already does it. As far as I can tell, this bill just requires that the social 
media 
companies provide such a feature.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
the state bills do. Im suggesting that once more states pass similar bills and the feds pass this one, then sites will jist dwfault to the id scans bc it would be easier than making exceptions for the few places that its not specificially required or where the government has put thebresponsibilty on sites to keep children out. Liquor stores arent required to scan or even check ids in many states, butt since theyre responsible if a minor gets liqior there, they show compliance by checking/scanning ids universally
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sure. I bolded the important part though.
If the bill is just "You have to provide a way for parents to setup their children's accounts as "child accounts" which come with these features" then there's no punishment
if they don't have that flag set on some particular account. It seems like this is more about forcing the social 
media 
companies to make this feature set available (which they currently don't because they fricking 
love addicted 
children).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
its still a dumb bill. Parents should be responsible for their children, not megacorporations. If younlet your kid use social media too much then youre a neglectful parent and we have mechanisms to punish that.
!slots222
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Backtracking quite a ways from "this bill will require all websites to verify your ID to use them" lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just bc a law doesnt list a specific requirement doesnt mean that it wouldnt result in a requirement to be in compliance with the law. Putting the responsibility on the sites essentially compels them to check IDs. Same way that setting an minimum drinking age and putting the liability on bars if they serve alcohol to minors compels them to check ids even in places where checking ID isnt explicitly required. Being compelled to prove youre not being negligent otherwise face liability, is ipso factor a requirement. Youre doing mental gymnastics.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As far as I can tell there
is zero requirement in the law for these social 
media 
companies to preemptively determine, on their own, which accounts are and aren't used by minors. Such a thing would 
be practically impossible 
anyways but I don't see it in the law.
To contrast with your r-slurred
example, there 
ARE requirements in state 
laws for establishments selling 
alcohol 
to only sell to patrons at or over the age of 18. You're right 
maybe some states 
don't specifically declare that such verification must be via an ID check 
but the requirement is still there, and is NOT there 
in this law.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
wow you dont want to protect kids? are you, like, a libertarian or something?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Fr, anyone against this wants children to be groomed by chuds like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The government did such a good job with TV and Music.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No bias there!
So they are publishers, not platforms then.
Unless some
is telling your kid to cut off his peepee I'm sure. That's where parental control ends.
Unless it's censoring someone with an opinion slightly right of Stalin.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They want to make laws that make it so it doesn't matter if you're a publisher or a platform, you just become a publisher.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I guess they feel it's better to settle the issue so they don't have to deal with something more onerous. I have to wonder how twitter is planning to comply with this one though:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I use Arch BTW
Snapshots:
https://apnews.com/article/senate-child-online-safety-vote-f27c329679feb2d74787fc3887aa710f:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context