- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
Charlie Jane Anders discusses KOSA (the Kids Online Safety Act).
If you’re in the US, https://www.stopkosa.com/ makes it easy to contact your Senators and ask them to oppose KOSA.
"A new bill called the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, is sailing towards passage in the Senate with bipartisa>n support. Among other things, this bill would give the attorney general of every state, including red states, the right to sue Internet platforms if they allow any content that is deemed harmful to minors. This clause is so vaguely defined that attorneys general can absolutely claim that queer content violates it — and they don’t even need to win these lawsuits in order to prevail. They might not even need to file a lawsuit, in fact. The mere threat of an expensive, grueling legal battle will be enough to make almost every Internet platform begin to scrub anything related to queer people.
The right wing Heritage Foundation has already stated publicly that the GOP will use this provision to remove any discussions of trans or queer lives from the Internet. They’re salivating over the prospect.
And yep, I did say this bill has bipartisan support. Many Democrats have already signed on as co-sponsors. And President Joe Biden has urged lawmakers to pass this bill in the strongest possible terms."
The arguments presented are so terrible and devoid of any meaninful substance
The first one was “China lol”
Then the one I replied to in support of “China lol” said “autocratic state” which is absolutely false unless all of your knowledge about China’s governance system comes from reading CNN headlines and skimming Reuters articles written by a dude with a bachelor’s in journalism that doesn’t speak Chinese
They also said “well known to” which implies it’s a special case when every state exerts overwhelming control and censorship over the media that occurs within their country
Isn’t the CCP given explicit power and privilege in the Chinese government and isn’t the CCP’s officially headed by a permanent leader as it’s “core”? I’ve been trying read about the political structure and it’s hard to not argue that it seems very autocratic.
The CPC (not CCP) is the guiding force of the government, and adapts to the will of the people through the mass line/being comprised of 10% of eligible persons. The highest level of the CPC (after the various levels of party committees/congresses) is the SC of the Politburo of the Central Committee, which is comprised of members elected through all levels and with terms of five years, and the highest individual position is the General Secretary (also terms of five years), elected by the Central Committee. Provided the persons in these positions are fit to serve, there are no definite term limits (one can be elected for a term of five years indefinitely until they are too old to serve (age limit), wish not to in which case a subordinate would the replace them, or are voted out by the CC) although I fail to see how a term limit can be justified when it is merely an undemocratic method of preventing the election of someone regardless of their success/the will of the population.
So what is the “core” position in relation to that? When is the next election for Xi Ping for that position?
Xi Jinping was re-elected as GenSec in 2022 (third term), so the Central Committee would foreseeably be doing a new election in 2027 (for the SC of the Poliburo as well).