• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months 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.