Classic small government conservatism.
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Conservative
377 readers
10 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fuck off with this crap. This is a parental decision.
Should this not be up to the parents to decide? Don't parents have a right to decide how they raise their children?
The law prevents children under 14 from creating accounts & children 14&15 from creating accounts without their parents consent. Parents can create accounts and give access to their children. The parents can still decide.
Why are republicans telling others how to raise their children? Why are republicans trying to make a Big Government State that controls the lives of citizens?
Why do republicans hate freedom?
Why are republicans telling others how to raise their children?
They’re not. This bill still allows parents to create social media accounts for their kids.
Because kids need to be protected. Its why they cant drink booze or drive or do much of anything.
[It] does require websites to give users the option of “anonymous age verification,” which is defined as verification by a third party that cannot retain identifying information after the task is complete.
Its not anonymous if you have to give up anonymity to complete the process.
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense? The NetChoice gang can afford to fight, and if they lose, implement this.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for children on social media. This is just not the way. If the authors of this bill actually gave a shit, they would be fighting for living wages and less work so families can actually spend time together.
It’s anonymous from the perspective of the website.
You have a trusted third party check the ID, so you don’t have to hold that ID data.
It’s kind like Stripe for credit card processing. You can integrate Stripe into your website and they handle all the credit card details in a way your server never has to see those credit card details.
I read about the fine more and if I read it correctly, it is really strange. The youth would be able to sue to get the money.
That means people could create fake accounts and bombard the sites with lawsuits.
I'm not a fan of that. I'll have to find a better source and verify that I read that correctly.
Same conclusion in my research. All these bullshit bills are erosions of privacy and/or a poor tax. CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, CASE, KOSA, etc...
Also seems ripe to use as a poor tax. How many Lemmy instances could survive a 10-50k fine per offense?
I would say zero. I have not read the bill, I’m not sure how they are defining social media or if they have guard rails to protect something like lemmy. That is a good point though
Conservatives: you can't remove my comment, I have a right to free speech!
Also conservatives: these people shouldn't be allowed to exercise the same free speech rights as me.
Conservatives: Nanny-state Democrats are trying to tell you how to raise your kids!
Also conservatives: we really need to tell these people how to raise their kids.
It seems that conservatives just think they should be able to tell everyone else what to do.
you can't remove my comment, I have a right to free speech!
Note how we didnt remove your comment, but engaged with it instead.
these* people shouldn't be allowed to exercise the same free speech rights as me.
13 year olds dont really belong on the internet, especially social media like TikTok or Lemmy. Plus demanding 13 year olds listen to you when they arent in your care is really fucking weird.
Also conservatives: we really need to tell these people how to raise their kids.
Child abuse laws exist for a really good reason. So does the drinking age, and smoking. Why should this be any different?
You used a whole lot of words to say nothing of value.
Specifically what do you disagree or agree about ?
Studies have shown social media is damaging to the mental health of children. As such young children shouldn’t be overly exposed to it.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/dangers-of-social-media-for-youth
Ill ask it in a much clearer way.
Republicans scream and shout about “Democrats telling parents how to raise their kids.”
Republicans are now banning kids from social media. Sure, thats a good step.
But how do you respond to the hypocrisy of “republicans can tell parents how to raise your kids”?
Isn’t the republican view “its up to the parents how they raise their kids”, so why are republicans now celebrating telling parents they aren’t allowed to let their children on social media?
If you look at the law closely it restricts children under 14 from creating an account. Parents can create an account and give their children access. Children under 14 can't consent to terms and shouldn't be permitted to create accounts.
There is no government getting in between parents and kids, this law just requires a legal guardian to provide consent to their children having accounts.
I am not opposed to this at all. Social media is toxic to children and limiting their access is best.
If parents can allow their children access, so be it.
I didn't allow my kid to access social media until she was 16 and even then, we had to have her PW to check on her account.
Your inability to refute my simple point is your problem, not mine. I will not be wasting time with someone who is dishonest in every interaction.
Maybe ban me again? That seems to be your MO for when you show your ass.
I refuted your word salad. That wasn’t hard to do.
Maybe instead of calling people dishonest, you should look to your own behavior.
You can’t even point out Anything specific you dislike. I actually cited a study showing why this is a good idea.
So we can ban things that are bad for mental health?
Sounds like conservatives shouldn't be on social media then. You know, since it made them try to overthrow the government.
For children yes. Children don’t have the same rights as adults.
Liberals are more likely to be mentally ill. Conservatives are less likely to be mentally ill. As such we are fine on social media.
It's so cute when conservatives try to paint themselves as the reasonable ones.
We are the reasonable ones. I don’t associate with those people. Those people act more like democrats.
There’s no way all of these removed comments were worthy of removal.
That must be why my post calling out a specific Republican elected official who marched with these Nazis was removed.
Refusing to call out the Nazis in your party is why they feel comfortable there.
Your "no u" sure rings hollow when you actively cover for Nazis.
Removed for rule 2: Saying Nazis shouldn't be in government is anti-conservative. Keep telling on yourself.
Those people act more like democrats.
What a smart thing to say: that right-wing extremists act "more like democrats"
Just... really solid reasoning there, champ. You really are the "reasonable ones."
Thanks for showing me how much facts and logic matter to you.
They voted for Biden. It’s well known the Neo-Nazis supported Biden in 2020. Democrats like to riot. That isn’t a republican trait.
So yes, it’s like looking at a typical democrat meeting to me.
It’s well known the Neo-Nazis supported Biden in 2020
These are not the words of serious person
Thanks for showing everyone why it's a waste of time "debating" with you.
"They voted for Biden."
You know, despite the fact that they were marching at Unite the Right.
You don't believe that; you just want to win an unwinnable argument. It's kind of sad that you're willing to abandon obvious facts rather than admit that these Nazis are Trump supporters.
You are dishonest as they come.
Look at you, swallowing Nazi propaganda as truth.
"Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" [Spenser] declared.
Big shocker there.
Tell me again: which candidate hosted white supremicist and Christian Nationalist Nick Fuentes at their home?
You know you're lying. It isn't fooling anyone.
No idea. Those seem to be groups you associate with as you know all about them. Were you in attendance at the meeting?
Wow, that's pretty clever.
Here's a big-boy gold star for your attempt at wit: ⭐
I hate to Google the meeting. It appears Kanye brought nick fuentes to dinner with Trump. Trump didn’t know who he was and neither do I. After the meeting Trump disavowed Fuentes and spoke out against him.
So much to do about nothing. Typical for you.
Genuinely, how does this guy constantly spam this brazenly uncivil and dishonest crap, and you guys never do anything about him, but you throw bans at conservatives at the drop of a hat?
Dont like it when your echo chamber is permeated with truth?
Lmao
There's nothing more civil than the truth, sweetheart 💋
Totally reasonable to bring noted anti-semite Kanye West to dinner.
You make a great point. Here's another big-boy gold star: ⭐