Social media platforms would be required to implement age verification measures to ensure youth under 16 can’t create social media accounts and allow parents to oversee social media use by 16- and 17-year-olds.
Yes.
It's tiresome how lawmakers love to put a ton of shit into a single vote.
It may be that is the actual reason these republicans voted no. Not that I trust them with kids close by, but 1 vote for a bill that looks more like a Walmart on crack than, well, a proper bill, I can imagine you end up voting in interesting ways sometimes.
It really is a pervasive issue, similar to how Republicans keep ramming pet projects into budget reconciliation bills in the House. We really need legislation that bars bills from containing unrelated items in them.
I’m not from the states so please forgive me if this is incorrect, but I’ve read a “bill” can start out as one thing. Get a load of traction, then be changed last minute to something else entirely just before the vote. Is that true? Seems impossible track if it is
"Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act"
Amendment: "... Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
1.Short titles; table of contents
(a)Short titles
This Act may be cited as the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act."
So that sounds good in theory, but in practice it is used to prevent anything the judiciary dislikes from being done. Have a single issue bill that all it says is it moves cannabis from class 1 to class 3 controlled substance? Well that affects interstate commerce too so whoopsie can't write that law.
This is a strategy, and has been for years, ever since political advertising became a thing over the air. "Congressman X voted NO on a bill that would stop people from drinking raw sewage (because it also contained a section that would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate food)", etc.
If a bill headlines as “think of the children” it is always evil and full of unrelated shit. No exceptions.
Good on those 3 republicans for looking out for their constituents. Now if you’ll excuse me I need to go take a shower after writing that last sentence.
One issue per bill. Those fuckers need to start working for their money again, not just continually posturing for sound bites they can use in their next election. But wait...that's getting a bit too close to transparency.
Before anyone twists my point, let me be perfectly clear: I have absolutely zero tolerance for child abuse, child exploitation, or child sexual abuse material in any form. Anyone involved in harming children deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That said, this meme is exactly why social media is such a terrible place to get political information.
The post claims that three Republicans voted against a bill banning AI-generated child sexual abuse material, but then provides none of the information necessary to evaluate the claim. It doesn't tell you the bill number. It doesn't tell you who voted no. It doesn't explain their reasoning. It doesn't link the text of the bill. It doesn't even attempt to discuss what was actually in the legislation.
Instead, it relies entirely on the assumption that the audience will immediately conclude that anyone who voted against the bill must support child exploitation. That is a massive leap, and one the meme intentionally encourages.
Legislators vote against bills for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes those reasons are bad. Sometimes they are legitimate concerns about constitutionality, definitions, enforcement mechanisms, unintended consequences, or provisions that have been bundled into the legislation. Whether those objections are valid is a discussion worth having. The problem is that this meme doesn't have that discussion at all.
In fact, it doesn't provide enough information for anyone to have an informed opinion. It simply presents a highly emotional topic, omits all relevant context, and invites outrage.
Maybe those three votes were completely indefensible. Maybe they weren't. The point is that nobody reading this meme has been given enough information to know. The purpose of the post is not to inform the reader. The purpose is to provoke an emotional response and direct that emotion toward a particular political group.
If your argument is strong, you should be able to tell people what the bill was, who voted against it, and why they said they voted against it. If all of that information is missing, what you're looking at is not analysis. It's propaganda.
That looks like the usual bad faith "they want to fuck children" smearing. I am almost fully certain that the bill contains egregious overreach and/or is redundant to existing law because that literally always was the case when I looked behind similar tweets in the past.
The stupid part is it's almost always shit like. Bill bans ai child porn on page one legalizes real child porn on page two. Head line POLITICIAN VOTES TO KEEP AI CHILD PORM LEGAL.
Wouldn't be surprised if this bill has horrid knock on effects that make every thing worse.
I read it correctly the first time. You said "investigate" but then you decided what the result of said investigation should be. You've already found them guilty because of a headline.
39 Comments
QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works · 102 pts · 88d
Didn't this bill also contained a social media ban?
kungen@feddit.nu · 159 pts · 88d
Yes.
It's tiresome how lawmakers love to put a ton of shit into a single vote.
nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world · 55 pts · 88d
It may be that is the actual reason these republicans voted no. Not that I trust them with kids close by, but 1 vote for a bill that looks more like a Walmart on crack than, well, a proper bill, I can imagine you end up voting in interesting ways sometimes.
bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip · 27 pts · 88d
It really is a pervasive issue, similar to how Republicans keep ramming pet projects into budget reconciliation bills in the House. We really need legislation that bars bills from containing unrelated items in them.
valkyre09@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 88d
I’m not from the states so please forgive me if this is incorrect, but I’ve read a “bill” can start out as one thing. Get a load of traction, then be changed last minute to something else entirely just before the vote. Is that true? Seems impossible track if it is
Tower@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 88d
Yup. Check the title of this bill vs the amendment
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s1318/text
"Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act"
Amendment: "... Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
1.Short titles; table of contents (a)Short titles This Act may be cited as the Foreign Intelligence Accountability Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act."
mech@feddit.org · 5 pts · 88d
I'm speechless. I mean it actually makes sense in the context of the archaic US democratic system, but still...
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 88d
they do that alot , the REPUBLICANS did this with NN bills which was actually disguising the TAX CUT of 2017.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 88d
So that sounds good in theory, but in practice it is used to prevent anything the judiciary dislikes from being done. Have a single issue bill that all it says is it moves cannabis from class 1 to class 3 controlled substance? Well that affects interstate commerce too so whoopsie can't write that law.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 88d
it will be hard to do that in missouri , the republicans have total control of the state.
Mirshe@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 88d
This is a strategy, and has been for years, ever since political advertising became a thing over the air. "Congressman X voted NO on a bill that would stop people from drinking raw sewage (because it also contained a section that would limit the ability of the federal government to regulate food)", etc.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 43 pts · 88d
If a bill headlines as “think of the children” it is always evil and full of unrelated shit. No exceptions.
Good on those 3 republicans for looking out for their constituents. Now if you’ll excuse me I need to go take a shower after writing that last sentence.
Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 87d
The scary part is, since social media age verification was hidden in it.. that might not be satire for once.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 87d
Oooh, funny that wasn't mentioned by either the tweet or OP. That's a significant factor.
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 87d
looks into the bill
Yet another "stop the kicking of puppies" bill that also included sacrificing all firstborns to the dark lord.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 5 pts · 87d
Where is the bill? It allegedly passed last week but when I pasted the sentence into DuckDuckGo and picked "Last month" I got no relevant results
https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Missouri%22+House+passes+bill+banning+AI+deepfake+porn+of+children.&df=m&noai=1&ia=web
leftascenter@jlai.lu · 24 pts · 88d
They just want AI to "ThInk abOUt THe cHildREn!"
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 20 pts · 87d
One issue per bill. Those fuckers need to start working for their money again, not just continually posturing for sound bites they can use in their next election. But wait...that's getting a bit too close to transparency.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 87d
Limiting bills to one issue requires anyone acting in good faith at all.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 87d
Before anyone twists my point, let me be perfectly clear: I have absolutely zero tolerance for child abuse, child exploitation, or child sexual abuse material in any form. Anyone involved in harming children deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That said, this meme is exactly why social media is such a terrible place to get political information.
The post claims that three Republicans voted against a bill banning AI-generated child sexual abuse material, but then provides none of the information necessary to evaluate the claim. It doesn't tell you the bill number. It doesn't tell you who voted no. It doesn't explain their reasoning. It doesn't link the text of the bill. It doesn't even attempt to discuss what was actually in the legislation.
Instead, it relies entirely on the assumption that the audience will immediately conclude that anyone who voted against the bill must support child exploitation. That is a massive leap, and one the meme intentionally encourages.
Legislators vote against bills for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes those reasons are bad. Sometimes they are legitimate concerns about constitutionality, definitions, enforcement mechanisms, unintended consequences, or provisions that have been bundled into the legislation. Whether those objections are valid is a discussion worth having. The problem is that this meme doesn't have that discussion at all.
In fact, it doesn't provide enough information for anyone to have an informed opinion. It simply presents a highly emotional topic, omits all relevant context, and invites outrage.
Maybe those three votes were completely indefensible. Maybe they weren't. The point is that nobody reading this meme has been given enough information to know. The purpose of the post is not to inform the reader. The purpose is to provoke an emotional response and direct that emotion toward a particular political group.
If your argument is strong, you should be able to tell people what the bill was, who voted against it, and why they said they voted against it. If all of that information is missing, what you're looking at is not analysis. It's propaganda.
Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 88d
Only 3?
WanderWisley@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 87d
Someone…should…probably…maybe…do…a…investigation..into…there…internet…search…history…just saying.
Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 87d
These 3 are actually the good guys, bill just has a ton of other privacy destroying shit hidden in it.
Leg@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 87d
Bills like this only exist to obfuscate the truth.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 88d
AI porn is creeping/infesting into the normal porn sites.
GhostFace@lemmy.today · 8 pts · 87d
They're not even trying to hide it anymore
Kaligalis@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 87d
That looks like the usual bad faith "they want to fuck children" smearing. I am almost fully certain that the bill contains egregious overreach and/or is redundant to existing law because that literally always was the case when I looked behind similar tweets in the past.
Jankatarch@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 88d
Literally easiest fucking moral dillema out there in modern world.
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 87d
The stupid part is it's almost always shit like. Bill bans ai child porn on page one legalizes real child porn on page two. Head line POLITICIAN VOTES TO KEEP AI CHILD PORM LEGAL.
Wouldn't be surprised if this bill has horrid knock on effects that make every thing worse.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 87d
or that the ones that vote no have phones/computers filled with child porn.. real or generated.
Remember, this is the epstein party we're talking about
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 88d
Where's the rest of the pork here?
Danarchy@lemmy.nz · 3 pts · 88d
The rest of em voted yes b/c they prefer the real stuff
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 88d
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 87d
Reminded me of https://youtu.be/ZaZPiwxPqO4
EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 88d
Investigate those enablers and pedophiles. Hang them all.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 88d
Or actually look deeper as to why they would have voted no before coming to the worst possible conclusion.
gumball4933@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 87d
Thats what “investigate” means
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 87d
Read it again. What do you think "investigate" means?
pupbiru@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 87d
investigate is the verb, but “those enablers and pedophiles” immediately labels them
and then “Hang them all” it pretty unambiguous
Jyek@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 87d
I read it correctly the first time. You said "investigate" but then you decided what the result of said investigation should be. You've already found them guilty because of a headline.