• OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • interolivary@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yup. Here in Finland the under 25’s most popular party in the recent parliamentary election was the extremist right wing one, followed by the “fiscal” conservatives (ie. they’d be OK with the extremists setting up concentration camps for leftists and foreigners as long as the camp was operated by a private corporation that didn’t have to pay taxes). Granted that we’re a pretty conservative country to begin with, but statistically gen X / millennial folks are more liberal than younger people here, and it just keeps getting worse every time there’s an election.

              • interolivary@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                People seem to find it comforting to believe that everyone under 30 is this close to seizing the means of production and declaring a socialist utopia, and they would have done it too if it wasn’t for those darn Olds and their stupid conservatism, which is totally something young people just don’t do

                • LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We’re not in Finland, this is America, it’s an entirely different country. You’re talking about your own country and it’s different with different people.

            • LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              We’re talking about 80 year olds, not any of those younger people. Old people are the problem, they should retire, not enter politics

              • TheMage@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why should young, inexperienced people run the country? I admit that the US Govt. Is a tad too old, especially the current president. But, that doesn’t mean we need a bunch of Berkeley students running things either. No thanks.

                Look, I know, I was once a kid/young adult too and didn’t listen to my parents or senior people very often, went against the grain, etc. but you eventually realize that maybe they DO know more than you did when you were in your 20s or whatever.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not how that works. The LGBT issue would be resolved by the courts, and how that turns out depends on the merits of the case.

            While the potential for targeting LGBT information is certainly an issue, it isn’t the core of the problem here. Even if there was a specific call-out in the bill that LGBT information doesn’t count, it’s still a bad bill because of the privacy implications. If you prioritize privacy, you get lgbt-friendly results for free. It turns out that keeping the government out of your business is generally a good thing when it comes to the Internet.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s not how that works. The LGBT issue would be resolved by the courts, and how that turns out depends on the merits of the case.

              Or they could just not pass the bill and not risk the hammer coming down on the lgbtq+ community.

              This will directly hurt the queer community, it is obvious. That’s why all the prominent queer folks, like the lawyer I linked, are saying as such. What expertise do you have over activists and civil rights lawyers within the queer community who are calling it an anti-queer bill?

              While the potential for targeting LGBT information is certainly an issue, it isn’t the core of the problem here. Even if there was a specific call-out in the bill that LGBT information doesn’t count, it’s still a bad bill because of the privacy implications. If you prioritize privacy, you get lgbt-friendly results for free. It turns out that keeping the government out of your business is generally a good thing when it comes to the Internet.

              It is also an anti-privacy bill. Things can be multiple things.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

                The privacy part is a guarantee since there will be audits and fines associated with not being able to prove compliance.

                If you attack the potential for anti-lgbt misuse, you might get a specific exclusion in the bill, and you’re still left with a bad bill. If it attack the privacy issue, there’s no way any part of the bill could be amended to satisfy privacy issues, so you just end up killing the bill.

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The LGBT part of it is merely a potential abuse of power. It could easily be a non-issue.

                  Potential? Like, they might not do it? Are you serious? They’re going to do it. And it isn’t an abuse of the bill, it is using the bill as it is intended.

                  I shall again ask for your expertise over the queer folks ringing the alarm over this.