• kungen@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Social media platforms would be required to implement age verification measures to ensure youth under 16 can’t create social media accounts and allow parents to oversee social media use by 16- and 17-year-olds.

      Yes.

      It’s tiresome how lawmakers love to put a ton of shit into a single vote.

      • nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It may be that is the actual reason these republicans voted no. Not that I trust them with kids close by, but 1 vote for a bill that looks more like a Walmart on crack than, well, a proper bill, I can imagine you end up voting in interesting ways sometimes.

        • bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It really is a pervasive issue, similar to how Republicans keep ramming pet projects into budget reconciliation bills in the House. We really need legislation that bars bills from containing unrelated items in them.

          • valkyre09@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m not from the states so please forgive me if this is incorrect, but I’ve read a “bill” can start out as one thing. Get a load of traction, then be changed last minute to something else entirely just before the vote. Is that true? Seems impossible track if it is

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            So that sounds good in theory, but in practice it is used to prevent anything the judiciary dislikes from being done. Have a single issue bill that all it says is it moves cannabis from class 1 to class 3 controlled substance? Well that affects interstate commerce too so whoopsie can’t write that law.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          This is a strategy, and has been for years, ever since political advertising became a thing over the air. “Congressman X voted NO on a bill that would stop people from having to drink acid every day (because it also contained a section that would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate food)”, etc.

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or actually look deeper as to why they would have voted no before coming to the worst possible conclusion.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          investigate is the verb, but “those enablers and pedophiles” immediately labels them

          and then “Hang them all” it pretty unambiguous

        • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I read it correctly the first time. You said “investigate” but then you decided what the result of said investigation should be. You’ve already found them guilty because of a headline.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    We should call them what they are: CSAM remixes.

    The LLMs are remixing the CSAM their companies hold in their training data. Yes, those companies have that material downloaded somewhere, and are republishing and remixing it for the public.

  • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If a bill headlines as “think of the children” it is always evil and full of unrelated shit. No exceptions.

    Good on those 3 republicans for looking out for their constituents. Now if you’ll excuse me I need to go take a shower after writing that last sentence.

    • Fmstrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The scary part is, since social media age verification was hidden in it… that might not be satire for once.

    • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The stupid part is it’s almost always shit like. Bill bans ai child porn on page one legalizes real child porn on page two. Head line POLITICIAN VOTES TO KEEP AI CHILD PORM LEGAL.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if this bill has horrid knock on effects that make every thing worse.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        or that the ones that vote no have phones/computers filled with child porn… real or generated.

        Remember, this is the epstein party we’re talking about

  • WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Someone…should…probably…maybe…do…a…investigation…into…there…internet…search…history…just saying.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    looks into the bill

    Yet another “stop the kicking of puppies” bill that also included sacrificing all firstborns to the dark lord.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    One issue per bill. Those fuckers need to start working for their money again, not just continually posturing for sound bites they can use in their next election. But wait…that’s getting a bit too close to transparency.