Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

[Chris Craig]

Im fascinated by the thought that because one speaks their opinions they cannot be called a name.

Having an opinion does not free someone from receiving criticism.

You can give one criticism without resorting to name calling.

I see what you are saying though.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Chris Craig]

Umm...anyone want to tell him

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Im fascinated by the thought that because one speaks their opinions they cannot be called a name.

Having an opinion does not free someone from receiving criticism.

You dance like Elaine from Seinfeld.

 

[julius]

You dance like Elaine from Seinfeld.

If I was as rich as Julia Louis Dreyfus is, I'd dance however the hell I want.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If I was as rich as Julia Louis Dreyfus is, I'd dance however the hell I want.

Well you're not.

 

[julius]

Well you're not.

And you're not a dog.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Honestly, no. Sucks for family and friends. But considering how many people (like my mother) have long agonizing illnesses for months or years, bleeding out in two minutes isn't so terrible. Not advocating shooting people, but given a choice between multiple cancers or starvation or being stoned to death, as Kirk said I should be, I will take bullet to carotid any day.

Of course, I would rather die peacefully at home listening to The Beatles eating ice cream, with my cat by my side. My version of Tyrion Lannister's often repeated wish for how he would die.

I found one small error and fixed it for you. I'm being generous in considering it small though...

 

[barfo]

I found one small error and fixed it for you. I'm being generous in considering it small though...

Is there really a recording of the Beatles eating ice cream?

barfo

 

[crandc]

I found one small error and fixed it for you. I'm being generous in considering it small though...

I love the Beatles.

 

[THE HCP]

Cool story bro.

Now go tell someone who gives a shit what you think.

It’s just kinda embarrassing to idolize somebody who thinks completely different than you. Might want to actually think about it.

 

[THE HCP]

Come on man, you know what he meant. Don’t defend that.

he even tried to blame it on him using voice text the first time he said that, only to repeat it again and show his true colors.

What are YOUR true colors. I mean we all already know, but wouldn’t mind hearing from you.

 

[THE HCP]

Interesting concepts.

AI has become a problem too. 3/4 of the stuff on social media is fake and people are falling for it.

Also bots, that needs to be taken care of.

Blaming social media and phones is lazy parenting. I loved that my kids were on social media. Sharing their life with us and family all over the country was amazing when they were younger.
I’ve shared how social media helped them get into college to play sports. Invaluable tool.

 

[Chris Craig]

Blaming social media and phones is lazy parenting. I loved that my kids were on social media. Sharing their life with us and family all over the country was amazing when they were younger.
I’ve shared how social media helped them get into college to play sports. Invaluable tool.

Oh, social media can be a good thing. Just pointing out a couple negatives of it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I will admit I don't really pay attention to the episodes. So I might have missed it. I just would have thought i would have read about it much in the same way I did this one.

Agreed. I think the first time it wasn't seen as that big of a deal. But now that it appears to have happened twice it seems like maybe a pattern is forming?

 

[THE HCP]

Social media isn’t bad….. the people that USE it are. Haven’t we heard that somewhere before?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Social media isn’t bad….. the people that USE it are. Haven’t we heard that somewhere before?

Agreed. It's about education.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Oh, social media can be a good thing. Just pointing out a couple negatives of it.

Nah he is right. It is lazy parenting and I'm not a fan of lazy parenting.
But Im at a loss for an answer.
For as many good parents there are out there, there are tenfold more ignoring what their kids are viewing, but simply using the phone/tablet as a babysitter. Ive seen it first hand.
However, regarding the comparison to guns, that's not accurate. Guns have restrictions. Minors cant buy guns.
Im not advocating for the elimination of social media, just regulations with minors. Just like many other things we have already set in place. Sorry. Trying to compare this with guns is a lazy argument as a rebuttal.

Edit: we also regulate what children can watch in the theatre. Ratings dictate what a minor is allowed and not allowed to watch. We likely need something similar for social media.
We have many things like this set in place to protect our children. Let’s not compare this to guns( I know you did not, Chris).
A gun is an inanimate object incapable of influencing children.
This is apples to oranges and comparing this to guns is a lazy rebuttal.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Nah he is right. It is lazy parenting and I'm not a fan of lazy parenting.
But Im at a loss for an answer.
For as many good parents there are out there, there are tenfold more ignoring what their kids are viewing, but simply using the phone/tablet as a babysitter. Ive seen it first hand.
However, regarding the comparison to guns, that's not accurate. Guns have restrictions. Minors cant buy guns.
Im not advocating for the elimination of social media, just regulations with minors. Just like many other things we have already set in place. Sorry. Trying to compare this with guns is a lazy argument as a rebuttal.

Edit: we also regulate what children can watch in the theatre. Ratings dictate what a minor is allowed and not allowed to watch. We likely need something similar for social media.
We have many things like this set in place to protect our children. Let’s not compare this to guns( I know you did not, Chris).
A gun is an inanimate object incapable of influencing children.
This is apples to oranges and comparing this to guns is a lazy rebuttal.

We need to ensure that parents can fully control the phones of children so they can easily control every aspect at the granular level. You can come close now with android (family link), but it's not as granular or user friendly as it could be.

iPhone is a joke. Your kids can do whatever they want on there.

You allow people to share customer configurations which can be updated.

Then you let parents decide what their kids have access to and when.

That's the best you can do.

That, and universal access to education and healthcare, and better social safety net.

 

[Shaboid]

My wife was telling me about this product the other day.

Tin Can - The Landline, Reinvented for Kids https://tincan.kids

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

We need to ensure that parents can fully control the phones of children so they can easily control every aspect at the granular level. You can come close now with android (family link), but it's not as granular or user friendly as it could be.

iPhone is a joke. Your kids can do whatever they want on there.

You allow people to share customer configurations which can be updated.

Then you let parents decide what their kids have access to and when.

That's the best you can do.

That, and universal access to education and healthcare, and better social safety net.

education should always be at the forefront of any solution. But sometimes it isn't enough. So we regulate.
I 100% agree. Cops don't arrest kids in home watching rated r movies. In the privacy of one’s home, it is up to the parent to educate. But once in the world, just like we have in many other facets, we should restrict access to certain information that is agreeably harmful to a child's development.

Should there be pcs for minors and pcs for adults? Two different platforms with the minors platform being more restricting?
pc’s in schools and libraries? What about a tablet bought and then used in public but not in the home?
Children are very tech savy. Children will likely figure out workarounds if it’s simply a software change.
I dunno. Brainstorming options, but I think we all agree we should at least discuss how we can start restricting the overwhelming hate and aggression of social media from our children. The children are the future and to me, any long term change, starts with them.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

People at the various social media companies had to (and are continuing to) actively intervene to ensure that the Charlie Kirk assassination video stayed up. Guess what their motivation was in doing so.

 

[Chris Craig]

Nah he is right. It is lazy parenting and I'm not a fan of lazy parenting.
But Im at a loss for an answer.
For as many good parents there are out there, there are tenfold more ignoring what their kids are viewing, but simply using the phone/tablet as a babysitter. Ive seen it first hand.
However, regarding the comparison to guns, that's not accurate. Guns have restrictions. Minors cant buy guns.
Im not advocating for the elimination of social media, just regulations with minors. Just like many other things we have already set in place. Sorry. Trying to compare this with guns is a lazy argument as a rebuttal.

Edit: we also regulate what children can watch in the theatre. Ratings dictate what a minor is allowed and not allowed to watch. We likely need something similar for social media.
We have many things like this set in place to protect our children. Let’s not compare this to guns( I know you did not, Chris).
A gun is an inanimate object incapable of influencing children.
This is apples to oranges and comparing this to guns is a lazy rebuttal.

Not arguing that lazy parenting isn't a problem. It is for sure. You are right. Alot of parents don't pay attention to what their kid is looking at. I always know what my son is looking at. my wife and I have it set up so we can see. We talk to him about the kind of bad stuff that he can run into to and he is actually very careful and actively is aware himself. But, we are always on the lookout.

I think that kind of lazy parenting with the social media stuff, also can be the same parents who are lazy with gun control...keeping their guns locked up securely and teaching their kids safety and what is right and what is wrong.

We saw that kid in what was it Michigan that his parents bought him a gun, paid no attention to him, left it out. Didn't consider or seem to care about his mental health. Let him do whatever. And he shot up a school. They are all on prison now.

We certainly need more attentive, caring parents in this country.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[Phatguysrule]

education should always be at the forefront of any solution. But sometimes it isn't enough. So we regulate.
I 100% agree. Cops don't arrest kids in home watching rated r movies. In the privacy of one’s home, it is up to the parent to educate.

You can't reliably verify ID on a remotely used device, and certainly not on children who don't have ID (unless you're suggesting that every website have access to our social security numbers driver's license, passports etc). If you assume kids are going to bypass software they'll just bypass the ID check.

Not possible and definitely overreaching.

But once in the world, just like we have in many other facets, we should restrict access to certain information that is agreeably harmful to a child's development.

This is the parent's job. We need to give the parents the tools and education necessary to do it.

Should there be pcs for minors and pcs for adults?

Minors would just get adult PCs or hack theirs to act like adult PCs.

Two different platforms with the minors platform being more restricting?

See above. This isn't an improvement at all.

pc’s in schools and libraries? What about a tablet bought and then used in public but not in the home?

Schools already provide these. They're called Chromebooks and the school controls it. My kids don't use theirs unless they absolutely have to.

Children are very tech savy. Children will likely figure out workarounds if it’s simply a software change.

Everything you have suggested is a software change and could be overcome with software.

I dunno. Brainstorming options, but I think we all agree we should at least discuss how we can start restricting the overwhelming hate and aggression of social media from our children.

This is what Alex Jones and Trump (etc) were banned from many social media for spreading. Musk invited them back on and things have gotten worse.

The children are the future and to me, any long term change, starts with them.

The only viable solution is encouraging capable and accurate content moderation on social media, improving access to education, including parents, and requiring that software companies make sure parents can easily monitor and control every aspect of their children's devices.

That's it. There is no other way to do it without violating the constitutional rights of the kids and everyone in the household.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) Poses Serious First Amendment Concerns
December 3, 2024

Growing concerns about social media use allegedly causing mental health problems in young people have spurred a bipartisan push in Congress for the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), an ill-considered piece of internet censorship legislation.

First introduced in the US Senate in 2022, KOSA (S. 1409) has gone through multiple revisions and gained the support of more than sixty-two senators despite criticism from digital rights advocates, child safety organizations, and civil rights groups. The most recent version of the bill would impose a “duty of care” on platforms requiring them to mitigate possible harms to minors, such as cyberbullying, eating disorders, substance abuse, and sexual exploitation. It mandates that underage social media users be permitted to opt out of algorithmic recommendations and turn off potentially addictive features of platforms while also providing parents with tools to protect their children. The latest version of KOSA assigns responsibility for enforcing the bill’s “duty of care” provision to the Federal Trade Commission.

A companion House bill introduced in May, H.R. 7891, parallels the Senate bill in most respects but would impose the strictest “duty of care” obligations only on “high impact” social media, messaging, and video game platforms with more than $2.5 billion in annual revenue or more than 150 million monthly users.

In a February 15, 2024, article for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Jason Kelley, Aaron Mackey, and Joe Mullin argued that updates to S. 1409 weren’t enough to fix its core First Amendment issues. The authors claimed the bill would endanger LGTBQ youth, young people seeking mental health information, and many other at-risk communities. When KOSA was first introduced, it was opposed by advocacy groups such as GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign for similar reasons. EFF contends that “KOSA remains a dangerous bill that would allow the government to decide what types of information can be shared and read online by everyone.”

Kelley, Mackey, and Mullin noted that because there is no case law defining “reasonable care,” KOSA would put platforms in a compromising position for hosting otherwise legal content on their websites, such as information about support groups for vulnerable and marginalized youth and suicide prevention resources. Moreover, they argued that KOSA mandates that platforms “restrict access to content based on age,” forcing them to adopt some sort of age verification system.

In her analysis of H.R. 7891 for EFF, Molly Buckley noted that, though the House bill would limit liability for the least popular platforms, it “still incentivizes large and mid-size platforms . . . to implement age verification systems that will threaten the right to anonymity and create serious privacy and security risks for all users.”

Corporate outlets, such as the Washington Post and New York Times, have covered successive iterations of KOSA but have not examined thoroughly the implications of provisions such as its “duty of care,” which EFF has called a “duty of censorship.” Independent, technology-oriented news sites, such as Techdirt, have investigated those implications in greater detail and centered young people’s voices in their coverage.


https://www.projectcensored.org/kids-online-safety-act-first-amendment/

 

[Strenuus]

People at the various social media companies had to (and are continuing to) actively intervene to ensure that the Charlie Kirk assassination video stayed up. Guess what their motivation was in doing so.

Still havent watched the video of it, and hopefully never will. We should never be shown anyone getting killed, period.

 

[RR7]

Still havent watched the video of it, and hopefully never will. We should never be shown anyone getting killed, period.

Which is ironic when he advocated for kids watching public executions.

 

[Strenuus]

Which is ironic when he advocated for kids watching public executions.

My disdain for him is known, but I mean come on... for his kids sake, his wife's sake (and yes I know how awful she is)... anyone who knows him... like, I cant even begin to fathom watching someone i love have that happen to so publicly.

He had abhorrent views, no doubt about it. But no one should be watching the video. We can not get desensitized to this violence. (Though I know at this point that is futile).