3 ms·

Sometimes (only sometimes, I promise) I wonder whether this kind of legislation is being dreamt up by a think tank tasked with planning how to implement some ul

Sometimes (only sometimes, I promise) I wonder whether this kind of legislation is being dreamt up by a think tank tasked with planning how to implement some ulterior goal (e.g. massively increased surveillance to fight crime - it's far too easy to unsert something more nefarious here). The politicians then just follow the action plan and repeat talking points from party advisors.

ForOldHack 1y ago
Like the German Socialist Democratic Party did in Germany in 1933? How well did that go?
- immibis 1y ago
  Very well, until it didn't.
viscountchocula 1y ago
[flagged]
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  This is the only mention of "age verification" in all 900 pages of Project 2025: "In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy concerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online." The policy recommendations for "Protecting Children Online" are found on page 875. The two main recommendations they make are: "The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract-making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent." "The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority." https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Project 2025 also asserts that porn isn't protected by the first amendment at all and should be banned. It seems disingenuous to ignore that.
    - frumplestlatz 1y ago
      I provided what was immediately pertinent, and I linked to the full, searchable document. That’s not disingenuous. Yes, they oppose porn. They do not advocate for age verification as the solution to it (or age verification at all), which is what would make their position on porn relevant to the topic at hand.

ForOldHack 1y ago

Like the German Socialist Democratic Party did in Germany in 1933? How well did that go?

immibis 1y ago
Very well, until it didn't.

viscountchocula 1y ago

[flagged]

frumplestlatz 1y ago
This is the only mention of "age verification" in all 900 pages of Project 2025: "In addition, some of the methods used to regulate children’s internet access pose the risk of unintended harms. For instance, age verification regulations would inevitably increase the amount of data collection involved, increasing privacy concerns. Users would have to submit to platforms proof of their age, which raises the risks of data breach or illegitimate data usage by the platforms or bad actors. Limited-government conservatives would prefer the FTC play an educational role instead. That might include best practices or educational programs to empower parents online." The policy recommendations for "Protecting Children Online" are found on page 875. The two main recommendations they make are: "The FTC should examine platforms’ advertising and contract-making with children as a deceptive or unfair trade practice, perhaps requiring written parental consent." "The FTC can and should institute unfair trade practices proceedings against entities that enter into contracts with children without parental consent. Personal parental responsibility is, of course, key, but the law must respect, not undermine, lawful parental authority." https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Project 2025 also asserts that porn isn't protected by the first amendment at all and should be banned. It seems disingenuous to ignore that.
  - frumplestlatz 1y ago
    I provided what was immediately pertinent, and I linked to the full, searchable document. That’s not disingenuous. Yes, they oppose porn. They do not advocate for age verification as the solution to it (or age verification at all), which is what would make their position on porn relevant to the topic at hand.