Post B4ffjSEgt7LToFwXmy by crouton@aus.social
(DIR) More posts by crouton@aus.social
(DIR) Post #B4eurrOUXTzSJ629tQ by eff@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
Doing away with Section 230 “and really removing a fundamental piece of architecture from the Internet is a really ham-handed blunderbuss way” of trying to address online child exploitation, EFF’s @davidgreene told WVIK. https://www.wvik.org/wvik-top-stories/2026-03-25/illinois-and-iowa-us-senators-back-ending-law-that-offers-protections-for-internet-platform-providers-claiming-companies-are-negatively-impacting-children
(DIR) Post #B4evYesKxVEJvvOxF2 by UnitaryBennu@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eff @davidgreene it's beyond maddening that "think about the children" shtick is still being employed to this day.
(DIR) Post #B4evvfG3hbVdmRT2C8 by notthatkindofdoctor@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eff @davidgreene There are like 100 things they could do right now to actually protect children. This is not one of them. Maybe try banning kids from being held in ICE custody, increasing vaccine access, and funding more housing support?
(DIR) Post #B4eyrlnljMnKmO4NBQ by steve_zeke@freeradical.zone
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eff @davidgreene I need “Section 230 for Dummies” to explain the statute and the issues. Something available at eff.org?I think I get the gist but clarity would be appreciated.
(DIR) Post #B4ffjSEgt7LToFwXmy by crouton@aus.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eff @davidgreene when a politician says the reason for XYZ is "save the children", the immediate response should be to assess whether the reason was put forward in bad faith. THE FIRST THING.This may change when enough bought politicians have been removed from office; for now its a pretty good guideline imho.
(DIR) Post #B4gJYCUx3Z79ysjnSy by DoctorDNS@masto.ai
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eff @davidgreene frankly, better parenting is way better. When will they wake up??