Fine, so who will be judging if there’s a depressive content on the internet, a psychologist? Also how about non-US sites, will they be banned or something?
Let’s use it against the government, they want to “care” about kids and steer them away from depression and anxiety? How about stop making the world suck for them. Because you can white wash any news report online about bad things happening, but it won’t mean the practice has stopped.
It’s never about kids. If they gave half a fuck about kids, we’d have free school lunches and teachers would be paid a fair salary.
So long as the internet is around to distribute fact-checks and officer-involved homicide videos they have no plausible lies by which the 80% of us in poverty or precarity should tolerate the abuse of plutocrats and capitalists.
So this is a first amendment issue: it’s about suppression of political speech. It always was 🌍 👩🚀 🔫 👨🚀 🌑
They’re a convenient scapegoat. You can accuse the other side of not caring about/endangering children for political points, and children don’t have politically-relevant opinions, or votes, so you’re never going to have children speaking up and going “that’s not correct”, or protesting against you for a law you’ve passed. If they do end up protesting, you can point fingers at the parents and say that they’re indoctrinating the children.
This doesn’t seem different from what many if not most major platforms are already doing voluntarily. Just replace the word “depressing” with the word “toxic” and suddenly everyone will support this.
Why take a principled stand against those who are pushing this when you can just say “government” and leave everyone thinking this is a bipartisan problem?
Jack O'Neil's son would still be alive today if he didn't get a hold of his father's gun. But then we wouldn't have Stargate. It's sort of a toss up to me.
Add comment