call and email your congresspeoples, and tell them not to go through with this

none2585 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then donate millions in campaign contributions to ensure they actually care at all what you think!

vegetablepotpie 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Coordinated opposition campaigns against misinformed and dangerous legislation has been effective in stopping bad laws [1]. After a website blackout, including a Wikipedia shutdown, lawmakers in Washington decided not to proceed with the Stop Online Privacy Act in 2012.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

	▲	none2585 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		From your linked Wikipedia articles many corporations including Google were part of that opposite campaign. Exactly the type of people donating untold millions to our legislatures. Had nothing to do with any kind of grassroots pressure.

▲

noosphr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Money is a poor substitute for people who care.

The only people who think otherwise are terminally online losers who have never organized anything larger than a birthday party.

	▲	none2585 31 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Maybe in your country but not in the hellhole that is the US.
	▲	verisimi an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Are you talking from experience? What legislation have you organised?

▲

rsoto2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Espiallat ($9.5 million) vs Darializa (350k)

Money matters but a popular movement is more powerful still in some places look up DSA

	▲	none2585 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Unfortunately "some places" does not include the US federal government.

▲

andai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't it interesting how they're doing it in every anglo country simultaneously? How does that work?

▲

microgpt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because the internet is global and the negative effects of the internet are happening everywhere at the same time. Also, politicians look at other countries for ideas.

▲

iamnothere 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At global conferences like Davos, where national leaders and policy makers go to schmooze and exchange ideas, this idea has been discussed for years. I’m sure there has been some subsequent cross-border coordination and discussion.

For instance:

https://idtechwire.com/spains-pm-proposes-mandatory-digital-...

https://www.weforum.org/publications/reimagining-digital-id/

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/01/davos-agenda-digital...

Everyone ignores stuff like this because of people like Alex Jones who make it seem like a lunatic conspiracy theory. But these conferences happen, and they do influence policy. It’s not a “cabal” that issues orders—many participants are national leaders bringing their perspectives (see the link above about Sanchez)—but it does have an impact.

The banal truth is that many different world leaders have talked each other into this after years of discussion on the proper way to “manage” the Internet. They see cyberspace as a threat to top-down technocratic control and view Internet-enabled populism (aka democracy) as something to be quashed.

	▲	ethbr1 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> [World leaders] see cyberspace as a threat to top-down technocratic control and view Internet-enabled populism (aka democracy) as something to be quashed. This has been true ever since the creation of the internet and web. It's what the original 90s crypto wars were about: the right of individuals to access strong encryption to preserve the privacy of their communications from the government. Absent that, pandora's box opens. Age KYC is just the next fight against encryption and privacy dressed up in "for the children" clothes. Strong encryption always has (and always will) facilitate criminal and illegal activity. Tough tits. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies should work within the bounds of individual rights, not adjust them for convenience. If the price of individual freedom^ is that it's harder to track and prosecute child exploitation, drug distribution, and mass terror attacks, then that's the way it needs to be. ^ "Individual freedom" as distinct from corporate freedom. Fuck non-human legal entities' rights to access encryption, aside from on behalf of their users.

▲

shevy-java 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because it is an organized attack. The lobbyists got their orders, now they pull it through. It is kind of fascinating to see though - I bet many people don't realise this coordinated attack. To me it is blatantly easy to notice. I am glad to not be the only one here.

▲

ethbr1 an hour ago | parent [-]

One cannot use a handwavey "organized" and "coordinated" without a subject. Who specifically do you propose is ordering this?

	▲	shomp 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If Facebook, in light of the 2021 "Facebook Papers," believed the legislation inevitable, what kind of legislation would maximize its advantage? Noteworthily, the legislation moves age verification from individual apps to app-store operators [Apple, Google] which reduces Facebooks legal exposure for inaccurate/incorrect age verifications.

▲

echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We do not need to lose our rights to privacy because people want to control what their kids do and see. (I'm not even convinced this is true - this is likely just a convenient lie told by the politicians, because I don't see parents clamoring for this.)

We're below replacement rate, so it's not like most people are even having kids, anyway. Yet we have to give up our freedom for other people to raise little Christian tots (or whatever the motivation for this is billed as)?

I grew up in a Deep South Protestant household. Having access to the unfiltered internet got me interested in STEM. Bumping into occasional shock sites and porn as a preteen did not turn me into a satanist cannibal.

Keeping "Kids Safe" is a LIE.

This is about putting collars on every US citizen.

They'll filter you into groups.

They'll control what loans and jobs you can get.

They'll use this information to blackmail you should you ever run for office or gain wealth or power.

This is a threat to democracy and personal liberty.

Child safety is a LIE.

▲

microgpt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

When did you grow up? The internet in 2006 and 2026 were nothing alike.

	▲	ethbr1 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The internet in 1986 and 1996 was nothing like 2006. 2006 is on the other side of the event horizon of "Don't be evil."
	▲	bluefirebrand an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yeah, the 2026 internet is way safer
	▲	aand16 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Go on...

▲

Bender 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

and have your children on the phone telling them to not let companies store and leak their information before they are old enough to consent to this.

If they are asking you to leave a message, have your kids leave the message.