this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
259 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

59039 readers
3181 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
259
Microsoft endorses anti-LGBTQ online "child safety" bill KOSA night before Big Tech hearing (US Politics) (gazette.com)
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://infosec.exchange/users/thenexusofprivacy/statuses/111847834655628571

Worth noting: Microsoft owns LinkedIn, which wouldn't be particularly affected by KOSA.

There's a hearing on Wednesday, and potentially a Senate vote soon, so if you're in the US now's a good time to contact your Senators. https://stopkosa.com and EFF's page make it easy!

#kosa #microsoft

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I saw the part that wasn’t crossed-out, but couldn’t find where it says Attorneys General can determine such things; I only saw where it says they can sue websites using this bill

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In practice, when the AG threatens to sue and the law makes it clear that they'll win (which KOSA currently does), companies will typically stop what they're doing (or settle if the AG actually launches a suit)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn’t the law only make clear they’ll win if it fits the law’s definition of harm?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The law's defintion of harm is extremely broad. Charlie Jane Anders has a good discussion of this in The Internet Is About to Get a Lot Worse:

"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."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Hmm, I was under the impression that Attorneys General could already sue whomever they want, success rates aside. Is that not the case?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Technically yes but judges get annoyed if there's absolutely no case, so they rarely do -- and if they threaten when there's no case, larger companies will look at it and say the threat's not real.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Wouldn't the same go for attempting to sue with this law on hosting LGBTQ content, which has no mention?