wait you're saying you don't want the .gov to gently slide a dildo up your backside and whisper sweet nothings in your ear?
This is not a good idea. The language is vague and overbroad. I think Vox or The Verge had the right take on it. It is, at best, realpolitik at the cost of the first amendment. It's very difficult to come up with coherent data privacy measures that don't make everything terrible (see GDPR). There might be a regulatory solution out there, but this isn't it.
Oh man, I am going to get myself some tik tok and a put on a dress and I will destroy the US and republicans with my special sparkly grimmace power glove. Just two snaps and a twist and that will be the end of the right wing. Captain marvel had better beware because I am taking her cishet ass out. Repubs are such cowardly craven little assholes it is amazing.
In this thread of people saying "wtf the government shouldn't have this power" you seem to be an outlier in thinking that.
"The government should do more to shore up protections for marginalized groups" and "the government should find better ways to protect privacy that won't also erode free speech" are two mutually exclusive concepts that can and should coexist.
Seems in this case we're looking at what people actually say, and you're listening to the tones in your head.
Twenty years of watching “progressives” argue in favor of greater government control of nearly everything right here on Wordforge. More taxes, more regulations, intrusions into the economy . . . Yeah.
Remember the days when "progressives" were pro free speech, anti corporation? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
You know, I've yet to hear a well articulated argument as to why an app full of kids dancing could pose a threat to national security. As opposed to the "American" social media companies? The one's who actually sold our personal data to be politically weaponized by a foreign corporation before? Give me a fucking break. Do you think that Meta would not sell our personal data to the CCP if it would make a significant impact to their bottom line? Meta is not an "American" company anymore. They are a multi-national corporation who's only goal is to return value to their shareholders. They might give a small fuck about America, but to a certain extent. Wake the fuck up. Instead of heavy handedly forcing ownership changes to a private company, why not regulate data collection practices? Is there something they are trying to hide from us? I bet there is. I bet they like the ability to manipulate people through social media. They just don't like it when "other people" do it.
And what happens when President DeSantis decides that anyone mentioning transsexuality, or "1/6 was terrorism", threatens the catch-all "national security"? What happens if a Democratic president decides everything coming out of Russia should be cut off for the sake of political games? This maybe can't touch websites that are strictly US-owned and operated, but it otherwise seems at least as bad as the worst fears of net non-neutrality.
