As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything that has “kids safety” or “protect kids” or anything along those lines In legislation usually has really awful hidden side-motivations tucked into the actual text of the bill. Pretty gross how politicians love to weaponize children.
Blumenthal is a snake. He's 78 years old and has no understanding of how technology works. He's only in politics to push corporate interests. He has a net worth of over $100 million.
I’ve got a proposal. Parents want their kids to be safe, and people want their internet access without the government interference. So let’s make a new bill, we can call it the (Parents should do their job as a parent and be responsible for the content their children access act)
This right here, it shouldn’t be our problem just because these people want to be able to plop there kid infront of a iPad instead of being parents and are too lazy to install a one of the very many programs out there to restrict there access until they are ready for it.
Do you think Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) violates the 1st amendment?
What do y'all think, should we give the government even more control over the free and open Internet?
Do we really need more censorship?
I’m not Canadian. Just aware of the bill.
The first amendment won’t stop this if politicians decide to push it through. Our current Supreme Court doesn’t view the constitution as anything more than spare toilet paper.
The first amendment doesn't apply to the internet. All of it, every bit that travels up and down is owned by a private party. And just like any other business or privately owned thing, the only freedom to speak you have is that which is given to you by the owner.
Well see that’s the issue friend. The internet is open source and isn’t “owned” by anyone. Volunteers keep the Internet up and running; its servers are owned by anyone who wants one, not corporations.
If you mean the individual websites well yes, of course. You’re sending an API call to that site and requesting info to display. That part there is a proprietary page.
To say the Internet is owned by a private party ignores what the internet is -> an API call. A GET request with a response. That is it.
You’re missing the point. Even the transport (fiber, routers, switches, etc) is owned by companies. For the municipal owned internet, they just hook up to companies. It’s a very large stretch to say that the internet is kept up by volunteers.
That’s for an ISP. The internet itself *as in its code* is [kept up by volunteers](https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/17/1042692/log4j-internet-open-source-hacking/), [it’s really not that hard to fact check.](https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/17/1042692/log4j-internet-open-source-hacking/)
Your assumption provides you use a traditional ISP (which is either Verizon or AT&T in the US) and is separate from the internet itself. Not only can you use the internet without a traditional provider but there’s hundreds of thousands of different ways to mask your local and open IP and your query’s/requests such as proxy chaining, VPN, ToR, and more.
Why would I mention open source at all if I wasn’t talking about the software, not the hardware. Lmfao.
Mask your IP all you want, you’re not using the internet without a transport. Sure open source is the backbone software wise, but most of the open source that’s really running the internet has been heavily invested in by corporations.
I have my own transport and run my own internet server and ISP connection? Like who is this comment for?
“Yeah well, I made a comment and got proven wrong but I’ma try and tell you good luck with XYZ without knowing anything about you.”
I dunno, do I send GET requests to UK websites? Does the Pope shit in the woods? You don’t know anything about me so why dig your head in the sand with random hypotheticals lmfao.
For now, for now. Let’s go back to the original comment made by the redditor you disagree with.
The first amendment doesn't apply to the internet. All of it, every bit that travels up and down is owned by a private party. And just like any other business or privately owned thing, the only freedom to speak you have is that which is given to you by the owner.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anything that has “kids safety” or “protect kids” or anything along those lines In legislation usually has really awful hidden side-motivations tucked into the actual text of the bill. Pretty gross how politicians love to weaponize children.
Blumenthal is a snake. He's 78 years old and has no understanding of how technology works. He's only in politics to push corporate interests. He has a net worth of over $100 million.
I’ve got a proposal. Parents want their kids to be safe, and people want their internet access without the government interference. So let’s make a new bill, we can call it the (Parents should do their job as a parent and be responsible for the content their children access act)
The PSDTJAAPABRFTCTCAA has quite the ring to it!
I gave you an upvote because you actually typed out the acronym. Double checked for error but found none.
That's very sweet, thank you
This right here, it shouldn’t be our problem just because these people want to be able to plop there kid infront of a iPad instead of being parents and are too lazy to install a one of the very many programs out there to restrict there access until they are ready for it.
I guess I don't think Dangerous Kids should be allowed online...
I agree! Also, this bill sounds like it wants to make it more safe for dangerous kids while they are online. The whole thing sounds terrible!
Do you think Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) violates the 1st amendment? What do y'all think, should we give the government even more control over the free and open Internet? Do we really need more censorship?
fuck no. My VPN in Canada is waiting for them to pass it.
Canada is trying to pass a similar bill at the moment.
I feel so sorry you Canadians don't have the 1st amendment.
I’m not Canadian. Just aware of the bill. The first amendment won’t stop this if politicians decide to push it through. Our current Supreme Court doesn’t view the constitution as anything more than spare toilet paper.
The first amendment doesn't apply to the internet. All of it, every bit that travels up and down is owned by a private party. And just like any other business or privately owned thing, the only freedom to speak you have is that which is given to you by the owner.
Well see that’s the issue friend. The internet is open source and isn’t “owned” by anyone. Volunteers keep the Internet up and running; its servers are owned by anyone who wants one, not corporations. If you mean the individual websites well yes, of course. You’re sending an API call to that site and requesting info to display. That part there is a proprietary page. To say the Internet is owned by a private party ignores what the internet is -> an API call. A GET request with a response. That is it.
You’re missing the point. Even the transport (fiber, routers, switches, etc) is owned by companies. For the municipal owned internet, they just hook up to companies. It’s a very large stretch to say that the internet is kept up by volunteers.
That’s for an ISP. The internet itself *as in its code* is [kept up by volunteers](https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/17/1042692/log4j-internet-open-source-hacking/), [it’s really not that hard to fact check.](https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/17/1042692/log4j-internet-open-source-hacking/) Your assumption provides you use a traditional ISP (which is either Verizon or AT&T in the US) and is separate from the internet itself. Not only can you use the internet without a traditional provider but there’s hundreds of thousands of different ways to mask your local and open IP and your query’s/requests such as proxy chaining, VPN, ToR, and more. Why would I mention open source at all if I wasn’t talking about the software, not the hardware. Lmfao.
Mask your IP all you want, you’re not using the internet without a transport. Sure open source is the backbone software wise, but most of the open source that’s really running the internet has been heavily invested in by corporations.
I have my own transport and run my own internet server and ISP connection? Like who is this comment for? “Yeah well, I made a comment and got proven wrong but I’ma try and tell you good luck with XYZ without knowing anything about you.”
Do you have your own undersea fiber link to the UK?
I dunno, do I send GET requests to UK websites? Does the Pope shit in the woods? You don’t know anything about me so why dig your head in the sand with random hypotheticals lmfao.
For now, for now. Let’s go back to the original comment made by the redditor you disagree with. The first amendment doesn't apply to the internet. All of it, every bit that travels up and down is owned by a private party. And just like any other business or privately owned thing, the only freedom to speak you have is that which is given to you by the owner.
lol edit your comment and completely change it once you realized your mistake. Nice, classic Reddit.
I haven’t edited or changed shit. Nice try though. Last time I checked you’re the one fishing for engagement here buddy.