4 ms·

Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online

35 points by zimpenfish 1y ago

zimpenfish 1y ago
Bluesky will block adult content and DMs for age-unverified users in the UK until they verify themselves using Epic's "Kids Web Services" system.
verisimi 1y ago
Statements like this one by bluesky: > Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online Make me think of one word: Collaborators The company is happy to strip people from their privacy, for the sake of children, terrorists, or whatever other excuse governments use to justify their excessive intrusion into people's lives.
basisword 1y ago
Privacy is very important to me. And having to verify your age/identity in anyway online seems very risky, open to abuse, blackmail etc. The privacy conscious can work-around the verification or decide not to access restricted websites anymore. It's hard to deny the negative impact that unfettered access to inappropriate material has had on the younger generations. Some sort of verification seems like a net-positive for society. The problem is that bypassing it whether via VPN's or accessing sites that don't comply will be so easy that the whole thing will be ineffective to a large degree. But maybe a little effectiveness is enough. If it helps prevent very young kids from accidentally stumbling upon inappropriate content maybe that will have a meaningful impact.
- thmsths 1y ago
  I also strongly value privacy and honestly this kind of scheme always rubs me wrong. In the physical world, we have IDs, provided by the government, a business is only required to do a brief check and often does not have to retain information. This means that you can retain a fair bit of privacy for the individual, and the burden on the business is fairly low. And yet, for some reason, online we get the worst of both worlds: businesses have to figure out how implement cumbersome verification measures (which means small businesses/ hobbyists will struggle to comply) AND there is basically no privacy. How did we get there?
  - basisword 1y ago
    Yeah this particular system doesn't sound great. It seems like Epic are storing the fact you're verified and your email. I've definitely seen systems where they verify you and immediately delete the data.
    - thmsths 1y ago
      Makes me wonder: why do we not have a government provided service? IDing people has, traditionally been a responsibility of the government. Even the private verification services ultimately rely on you showing your government issued ID at some point. If the governments want online verification, they should provide the tools and make sure they are accessible to all.
      - basisword 1y ago
        It sounds like a good idea to me and given the quality of some of the government tech services now in the UK I'm sure they could do a good job of it. But people are still against ID cards. Telling the government directly that you're viewing content on specific sites seems like something that would never be accepted.
      - zimpenfish 1y ago
        > Makes me wonder: why do we not have a government provided service? Because every UKGOV since about 1980 has had an obsession with small government and farming out as much as they can to private contractors[0] regardless of consequences. [0] Until those contractors fail to perform / go bust at which point the government steps in, things get better (shockingly) for a while, and then the government farms it out to another bunch of idiots who have ~bribed~ lobbied hard and the cycle repeats.
  - hluska 1y ago
    We got here because adults cannot stop using the internet to victimize children. Education failed. Enforcement has largely failed. A loss of privacy is the next logical step until adults stop victimizing children. I use my nine year olds accounts fairly regularly and I’ve gotta tell ya mate, the number of dudes I meet who are pretending to be 9 and 10 year olds girls is pretty shocking. A loss of privacy stinks but at some point, society as a whole pays for the actions of very few. It’s the dark side of laws - they restrict freedom for everyone because a select few cannot be trusted with the tools we have at our disposal.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
JoshTriplett 1y ago
This is a good way to test if a service is actually federated: Does this affect people using other servers? If people using other servers can communicate with each other and not care what policies the central bsky server sets, then it's actually federated.
- odo1242 1y ago
  The way Bluesky works, there's a "personal data server/PDS" (which is how you host your own posts) and an "app server" (which queries everyone else's posts to create the whole app interface). You'd have to host both (the PDS is easy, the app server is hard) to avoid the Bluesky policies. That said, since it is still quite possible to do so, I think Bluesky is on the right side of that tradeoff.
bjackman 1y ago
I think the important question here is: once they've got your face or ID, do they store it? Is this effectively forbidding pseudonymity? It's worth thinking twice about this in a country that is actively censoring mainstream political speech in its media.
- aboringusername 1y ago
  The claim is that the data is "deleted", but there is no way to actually verify it is in fact being deleted (and the chances are data itself might be stored in say AWS which may have its own way of "deleting" data, such as in backups, caches, multiple regions etc (however they have their own legal process which may not allow data to be deleted in the event of a law enforcement request, and there's no way for anyone using the service to understand who is actually handling the data as it passes by their servers, which could be suspectable to interception etc)). Truth is, the data is much too valuable, and is useful for long term storage to know what somebody looked like or who they were when accessing content online. The UK has the RIPA so they could serve a technology notice for data to be retained and prevent disclosure of that fact. Apple was recently involved in such a request to disable advanced data protection, and the UK government is disgusted by E2EE and the very idea they cannot access every piece of data they like on demand, and wanted the entire thing held in secret. So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. The UK government will absolutely be able to access this information and know all about what you've been doing if you're foolish enough to actually submit legitimate information.
  - xg15 1y ago
    > So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. OK, but what would the practical conclusion of this be? A lot of services will require those scans to be made. So, just get used to the fact that your face scans will be stored beyond your control?
    - nemomarx 1y ago
IshKebab 1y ago
Here's what you want to know: https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/kids-web-services/pv-service/verification-methods#face-scan-worldwide-except-usa-and-republic-of-korea https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/kids-web-services/pv-service/... > Parents in all regions except the USA and the Republic of Korea can verify their age using face scan. KWS prompts the parent to hold their device in front of their face. A machine-learning algorithm estimates the parent’s age using the device’s camera. > Face scan verification is provided by Yoti (yoti.com). They have an app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yoti.mobile.android.live https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yoti.mobil... I installed it but there's no direct interface - it needs to be opened via some intent and I can't be bothered to figure that out. I would put a lot of money on it not being able to detect you pointing your phone at a Veo3 video of an old person though. Maybe on iPhones where you reliably have a depth camera? Doubtful on Android though. It only takes one smart kid to beat this, and there are plenty of those.
- rphln 1y ago
  Can't speak about this one in particular, but the face scans for banking that I know of also includes liveness checks to avoid AI impersonation (and presumably dead bodies).
  - IshKebab 1y ago
    What kind of liveness checks?
    - rphln 1y ago
      The app asks you to move the camera or change your expression throughout the verification. I'm not familiar with how it works on the implementation side. A ML conference that I attended had a presenter working on this area and beating AI impersonation was their #1 priority (along with other trivial approaches). For what it's worth, this might also be just a security theater from the banks, though.
      - zimpenfish 1y ago
ImPleadThe5th 1y ago
I used to be vehemently against this. But now I really do think we need to reel in the youth having unfettered access to attention grabbing algorithms. I know this isn't really what this is for but it's a step. That being said, I wish these verification services would be provided by the government (with ridged watchdogs for storage) and not by private companies.
- ronsor 1y ago
  I think the youth's parents should be reeling them in, not the government or third parties at the expense of everyone else's freedom.
  - snarf_br 1y ago
    I think we're ten years beyond that point now.
  - 63 1y ago
    Ideally, sure. In practice, that hasn't worked well. I was a youth fairly recently and I can assure you my mother lacked the knowledge to meaningfully enforce any content restrictions on my devices short of physically going through my phone. Incognito windows and deleting texts isn't exactly out of reach for children.
    - notaustinpowers 1y ago
      Why does that make that everyone else’s problem?
      - 63 1y ago
        What I'm hearing is "I would rather let millions of kids get victimized than allow even the remote possibility of being held accountable for what I say on the internet." In my mind it's all of our problems that children are getting groomed and manipulated online and the downside is minimal here. Like the worst case scenario is we have to assume people know who we are when we tweet... which doesn't even sound like a downside to me.
aboringusername 1y ago
Laws such as these are dangerous because it normalizes the idea that you should submit your most personal data - and the risks that come with that - in order to access a service. In the real world, as another commenter has said, we don't retain that information beyond the confirmation. Just like the Ashley Madison leak, data will be leaked, and companies hide behind "third party" to limit their own liability. I would like to know who these third parties are however, and they should be required to identify themselves (with their names, addresses, photos being made public). However, I actually welcome changes like this. And they are healthy and good for the internet. Because when draconian laws such as these are passed it's our obligation to express our displeasure and disobedience. So we'll use proxies, VPNs and other tools we may not have even invented yet just to make it clear they are not welcome to control access to content, they can try, but must never succeed. They will try to block such tools, and we'll need to make new ones, and, as a community of hackers, it's vital free access to information is protected at all costs. So we need more of this, it should be the law in every country, because only then will there be a motivation to ensure such laws are not enforceable on a technical level.
TacticalCoder 1y ago
The UK is in the middle of a huge scandal that prompted a national enquiry regarding actual physical harm done to countless teenage girls: in the hundreds for sure, probably in the thousands: "PM announces national inquiry into grooming gangs" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo Note that the PM eventually bowed and launched a national enquire due to pressure: it's not as if he's a white knight here. For it was all covered up by local politicians and police (some of which whom, for sure, also abused the girls) for fear of showing certain communities in a bad light (that's the official statement of several police officers as to why the countless reports of rape weren't followed). It's great to "think about the children" but the UK should first look into why the number of rapes in the UK went 10x from 2000 to now. Ten fold. 10x. In a quarter of a century. What happened to the UK? So the UK protecting children: remains to be seen. As a sidenote there feels like there's an hint of posing here by BlueSky too: many call that social network "PedoSky" and the reason for it is many people with very dubious behaviour who couldn't silence their critics on Twitter/X moved to BlueSky. You know which kind of people: those who'll say it's acceptable to be attracted by children as long you don't physically do anything to them, those men wearing women outfit and dancing salaciously under the pretext that it's "art". They are on BlueSky, that's a fact. Hence, maybe, the posturing by BlueSky now. I see that announcement as a safe haven for pedos teaming up with a government actively involved in the coverup of massive rape rings operation. But I take it we should all applaud because it's all done in very good faith? It's Orwellian stuff.
isaacremuant 1y ago
Working with the UK government and other mass surveillance lovers to create the forcible use of digital I'd identity to be online, which so many lobby companies are creaming at the idea of getting the concracts for. Protecting the children in the UK would actually be pushing for less wars, lowering taxes and improving healthcare and education. Providing good community centers and paths to economic independence. These "think of the children" excuses are the same as "oh no the terrorists/drug kingpins" and all those other threats. The threat is plutocracy and concentration of power.
xg15 1y ago
Maybe the screenshots just don't show it, but I'm missing the "I'm under 18, just don't verfify me and dismiss the notifications" flow. Or are you just supposed to ignore constant nag screens if you can't verify?
cladopa 1y ago
My question is: who protects Children against the UK Government? Governments are very dangerous institutions. They hold a lot of power and can abuse it.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  Well, in the US, we invented this cool thing called an amendment which gave everyone in theory the ability to hold a government accountable the hard way, and we invented it after a long history of knowing what the UK was like... This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. /s
- SllX 1y ago
  UK Voters or no one, depending on which half of the glass you focus on. Sovereign power is scary af, but in theory also kept in check by voters. The problem is that no matter what form of government you have, it is still downstream from culture, and if this kind of policy is what UK voters want or can be talked into wanting, then this is what the King’s subjects shall get.
  - baw-bag 1y ago
    It's just so tragic to read it like that but, that's exactly how it is.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  Case in point: what's happening to trans kids in the UK at the moment. If you don't think this technology will be used to keep kids from connecting with peers like themselves, or learning or reading about themselves, because of some trans panic, you haven't been paying attention. Politicians all over the world have put forth legislation like this with the explicit purpose of preventing LGBT kids from connecting with peers or learning anything related to their identities[1]: > A co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill intended to protect children from the dangers of social media and other online content appeared to suggest in March that the measure could be used to steer kids away from seeing transgender content online. > In a video recently published by the conservative group Family Policy Alliance, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture” should be among the top priorities of conservative lawmakers. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/senator-appears-suggest-bipartisan-bill-will-censor-transgender-conten-rcna103479 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...

35 points by zimpenfish 1y ago

Bluesky will block adult content and DMs for age-unverified users in the UK until they verify themselves using Epic's "Kids Web Services" system.

verisimi 1y ago

Statements like this one by bluesky: > Working with the UK Government to Protect Children Online Make me think of one word: Collaborators The company is happy to strip people from their privacy, for the sake of children, terrorists, or whatever other excuse governments use to justify their excessive intrusion into people's lives.

basisword 1y ago

Privacy is very important to me. And having to verify your age/identity in anyway online seems very risky, open to abuse, blackmail etc. The privacy conscious can work-around the verification or decide not to access restricted websites anymore. It's hard to deny the negative impact that unfettered access to inappropriate material has had on the younger generations. Some sort of verification seems like a net-positive for society. The problem is that bypassing it whether via VPN's or accessing sites that don't comply will be so easy that the whole thing will be ineffective to a large degree. But maybe a little effectiveness is enough. If it helps prevent very young kids from accidentally stumbling upon inappropriate content maybe that will have a meaningful impact.

thmsths 1y ago
I also strongly value privacy and honestly this kind of scheme always rubs me wrong. In the physical world, we have IDs, provided by the government, a business is only required to do a brief check and often does not have to retain information. This means that you can retain a fair bit of privacy for the individual, and the burden on the business is fairly low. And yet, for some reason, online we get the worst of both worlds: businesses have to figure out how implement cumbersome verification measures (which means small businesses/ hobbyists will struggle to comply) AND there is basically no privacy. How did we get there?
- basisword 1y ago
  Yeah this particular system doesn't sound great. It seems like Epic are storing the fact you're verified and your email. I've definitely seen systems where they verify you and immediately delete the data.
  - thmsths 1y ago
    Makes me wonder: why do we not have a government provided service? IDing people has, traditionally been a responsibility of the government. Even the private verification services ultimately rely on you showing your government issued ID at some point. If the governments want online verification, they should provide the tools and make sure they are accessible to all.
    - basisword 1y ago
      It sounds like a good idea to me and given the quality of some of the government tech services now in the UK I'm sure they could do a good job of it. But people are still against ID cards. Telling the government directly that you're viewing content on specific sites seems like something that would never be accepted.
    - zimpenfish 1y ago
      > Makes me wonder: why do we not have a government provided service? Because every UKGOV since about 1980 has had an obsession with small government and farming out as much as they can to private contractors[0] regardless of consequences. [0] Until those contractors fail to perform / go bust at which point the government steps in, things get better (shockingly) for a while, and then the government farms it out to another bunch of idiots who have ~bribed~ lobbied hard and the cycle repeats.
- hluska 1y ago
  We got here because adults cannot stop using the internet to victimize children. Education failed. Enforcement has largely failed. A loss of privacy is the next logical step until adults stop victimizing children. I use my nine year olds accounts fairly regularly and I’ve gotta tell ya mate, the number of dudes I meet who are pretending to be 9 and 10 year olds girls is pretty shocking. A loss of privacy stinks but at some point, society as a whole pays for the actions of very few. It’s the dark side of laws - they restrict freedom for everyone because a select few cannot be trusted with the tools we have at our disposal.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

JoshTriplett 1y ago

This is a good way to test if a service is actually federated: Does this affect people using other servers? If people using other servers can communicate with each other and not care what policies the central bsky server sets, then it's actually federated.

odo1242 1y ago
The way Bluesky works, there's a "personal data server/PDS" (which is how you host your own posts) and an "app server" (which queries everyone else's posts to create the whole app interface). You'd have to host both (the PDS is easy, the app server is hard) to avoid the Bluesky policies. That said, since it is still quite possible to do so, I think Bluesky is on the right side of that tradeoff.

bjackman 1y ago

I think the important question here is: once they've got your face or ID, do they store it? Is this effectively forbidding pseudonymity? It's worth thinking twice about this in a country that is actively censoring mainstream political speech in its media.

aboringusername 1y ago
The claim is that the data is "deleted", but there is no way to actually verify it is in fact being deleted (and the chances are data itself might be stored in say AWS which may have its own way of "deleting" data, such as in backups, caches, multiple regions etc (however they have their own legal process which may not allow data to be deleted in the event of a law enforcement request, and there's no way for anyone using the service to understand who is actually handling the data as it passes by their servers, which could be suspectable to interception etc)). Truth is, the data is much too valuable, and is useful for long term storage to know what somebody looked like or who they were when accessing content online. The UK has the RIPA so they could serve a technology notice for data to be retained and prevent disclosure of that fact. Apple was recently involved in such a request to disable advanced data protection, and the UK government is disgusted by E2EE and the very idea they cannot access every piece of data they like on demand, and wanted the entire thing held in secret. So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. The UK government will absolutely be able to access this information and know all about what you've been doing if you're foolish enough to actually submit legitimate information.
- xg15 1y ago
  > So the reality is, assume everything on the internet is being archived, including any scans you do, and adjust the threat model accordingly. OK, but what would the practical conclusion of this be? A lot of services will require those scans to be made. So, just get used to the fact that your face scans will be stored beyond your control?
  - nemomarx 1y ago

IshKebab 1y ago

Here's what you want to know: https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/kids-web-services/pv-service/verification-methods#face-scan-worldwide-except-usa-and-republic-of-korea https://dev.epicgames.com/docs/kids-web-services/pv-service/... > Parents in all regions except the USA and the Republic of Korea can verify their age using face scan. KWS prompts the parent to hold their device in front of their face. A machine-learning algorithm estimates the parent’s age using the device’s camera. > Face scan verification is provided by Yoti (yoti.com). They have an app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yoti.mobile.android.live https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.yoti.mobil... I installed it but there's no direct interface - it needs to be opened via some intent and I can't be bothered to figure that out. I would put a lot of money on it not being able to detect you pointing your phone at a Veo3 video of an old person though. Maybe on iPhones where you reliably have a depth camera? Doubtful on Android though. It only takes one smart kid to beat this, and there are plenty of those.

rphln 1y ago
Can't speak about this one in particular, but the face scans for banking that I know of also includes liveness checks to avoid AI impersonation (and presumably dead bodies).
- IshKebab 1y ago
  What kind of liveness checks?
  - rphln 1y ago
    The app asks you to move the camera or change your expression throughout the verification. I'm not familiar with how it works on the implementation side. A ML conference that I attended had a presenter working on this area and beating AI impersonation was their #1 priority (along with other trivial approaches). For what it's worth, this might also be just a security theater from the banks, though.
    - zimpenfish 1y ago

ImPleadThe5th 1y ago

I used to be vehemently against this. But now I really do think we need to reel in the youth having unfettered access to attention grabbing algorithms. I know this isn't really what this is for but it's a step. That being said, I wish these verification services would be provided by the government (with ridged watchdogs for storage) and not by private companies.

ronsor 1y ago
I think the youth's parents should be reeling them in, not the government or third parties at the expense of everyone else's freedom.
- snarf_br 1y ago
  I think we're ten years beyond that point now.
- 63 1y ago
  Ideally, sure. In practice, that hasn't worked well. I was a youth fairly recently and I can assure you my mother lacked the knowledge to meaningfully enforce any content restrictions on my devices short of physically going through my phone. Incognito windows and deleting texts isn't exactly out of reach for children.
  - notaustinpowers 1y ago
    Why does that make that everyone else’s problem?
    - 63 1y ago
      What I'm hearing is "I would rather let millions of kids get victimized than allow even the remote possibility of being held accountable for what I say on the internet." In my mind it's all of our problems that children are getting groomed and manipulated online and the downside is minimal here. Like the worst case scenario is we have to assume people know who we are when we tweet... which doesn't even sound like a downside to me.

aboringusername 1y ago

Laws such as these are dangerous because it normalizes the idea that you should submit your most personal data - and the risks that come with that - in order to access a service. In the real world, as another commenter has said, we don't retain that information beyond the confirmation. Just like the Ashley Madison leak, data will be leaked, and companies hide behind "third party" to limit their own liability. I would like to know who these third parties are however, and they should be required to identify themselves (with their names, addresses, photos being made public). However, I actually welcome changes like this. And they are healthy and good for the internet. Because when draconian laws such as these are passed it's our obligation to express our displeasure and disobedience. So we'll use proxies, VPNs and other tools we may not have even invented yet just to make it clear they are not welcome to control access to content, they can try, but must never succeed. They will try to block such tools, and we'll need to make new ones, and, as a community of hackers, it's vital free access to information is protected at all costs. So we need more of this, it should be the law in every country, because only then will there be a motivation to ensure such laws are not enforceable on a technical level.

TacticalCoder 1y ago

The UK is in the middle of a huge scandal that prompted a national enquiry regarding actual physical harm done to countless teenage girls: in the hundreds for sure, probably in the thousands: "PM announces national inquiry into grooming gangs" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7872pngj2qo Note that the PM eventually bowed and launched a national enquire due to pressure: it's not as if he's a white knight here. For it was all covered up by local politicians and police (some of which whom, for sure, also abused the girls) for fear of showing certain communities in a bad light (that's the official statement of several police officers as to why the countless reports of rape weren't followed). It's great to "think about the children" but the UK should first look into why the number of rapes in the UK went 10x from 2000 to now. Ten fold. 10x. In a quarter of a century. What happened to the UK? So the UK protecting children: remains to be seen. As a sidenote there feels like there's an hint of posing here by BlueSky too: many call that social network "PedoSky" and the reason for it is many people with very dubious behaviour who couldn't silence their critics on Twitter/X moved to BlueSky. You know which kind of people: those who'll say it's acceptable to be attracted by children as long you don't physically do anything to them, those men wearing women outfit and dancing salaciously under the pretext that it's "art". They are on BlueSky, that's a fact. Hence, maybe, the posturing by BlueSky now. I see that announcement as a safe haven for pedos teaming up with a government actively involved in the coverup of massive rape rings operation. But I take it we should all applaud because it's all done in very good faith? It's Orwellian stuff.

isaacremuant 1y ago

Working with the UK government and other mass surveillance lovers to create the forcible use of digital I'd identity to be online, which so many lobby companies are creaming at the idea of getting the concracts for. Protecting the children in the UK would actually be pushing for less wars, lowering taxes and improving healthcare and education. Providing good community centers and paths to economic independence. These "think of the children" excuses are the same as "oh no the terrorists/drug kingpins" and all those other threats. The threat is plutocracy and concentration of power.

xg15 1y ago

Maybe the screenshots just don't show it, but I'm missing the "I'm under 18, just don't verfify me and dismiss the notifications" flow. Or are you just supposed to ignore constant nag screens if you can't verify?

cladopa 1y ago

My question is: who protects Children against the UK Government? Governments are very dangerous institutions. They hold a lot of power and can abuse it.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
Well, in the US, we invented this cool thing called an amendment which gave everyone in theory the ability to hold a government accountable the hard way, and we invented it after a long history of knowing what the UK was like... This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. /s
SllX 1y ago
UK Voters or no one, depending on which half of the glass you focus on. Sovereign power is scary af, but in theory also kept in check by voters. The problem is that no matter what form of government you have, it is still downstream from culture, and if this kind of policy is what UK voters want or can be talked into wanting, then this is what the King’s subjects shall get.
- baw-bag 1y ago
  It's just so tragic to read it like that but, that's exactly how it is.
heavyset_go 1y ago
Case in point: what's happening to trans kids in the UK at the moment. If you don't think this technology will be used to keep kids from connecting with peers like themselves, or learning or reading about themselves, because of some trans panic, you haven't been paying attention. Politicians all over the world have put forth legislation like this with the explicit purpose of preventing LGBT kids from connecting with peers or learning anything related to their identities[1]: > A co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill intended to protect children from the dangers of social media and other online content appeared to suggest in March that the measure could be used to steer kids away from seeing transgender content online. > In a video recently published by the conservative group Family Policy Alliance, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture” should be among the top priorities of conservative lawmakers. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/senator-appears-suggest-bipartisan-bill-will-censor-transgender-conten-rcna103479 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...