[propaganja]

Deciding what we want as a society is fine. Vehemently disagreeing over what and how things should be regulated is fine too. In general, trying to do anything in good faith is more or less fine.

What is not fine is proposing to make regulations that purport to do things that are near-universally supported, but in reality further agendas that are widely opposed, agendas that work against the interests of the American people and would never pass otherwise.

That is very clearly what is happening here, and we know that because it happens all the time, using the same tried-and-true formula. In particular, anything claiming to "protect the children" is almost certainly an obfuscated attempt to erode civil rights protections like free speech or privacy, and should be treated with extreme prejudice.

*edit* Also, anything Rahm Emmanuel says, believe the exact opposite.

[MarkMarine]

I agree with the sentiment, but the rights of Americans are being eroded at a comical rate with no positives like protecting children (be that an allusion to protecting them or actually doing it)

Look at the TikTok “ban” for example. Congress passed a law to ban it because they didn’t have control over what the population was seeing, specifically around the genocide in Gaza. Now US ownership has passed to Larry Ellison, a republican connected pro-Zionist that will make sure the objectionable content that shows Palestinian's suffering does not bubble up in the algorithm. Never mind that you see 10 year old girls practicing TikTok dances when they are standing in line, waiting for the bus, etc. That problem persists, and no one in leadership cares because now the right people are getting rich and censoring the actual content the rulers cared about.

I’m with you on Rahm, but I’m not going to let him trying to hook his wagon to a policy that I support ruin my support of it.