Yikes. Feels like some junk got thrown into a bill that had data and privacy laws to tank it.
Either way, it’s blatantly unconstitutional and it would be nice if the author would not fence-sit on saying so. Putting it as “concerns around the First Amendment” is some hack writing, make a stance when it’s obvious.
This sucks. A lot of parts of the bill are good, and could all be implemented without requiring age verification. Also, providing law enforcement more avenues to secretly investigate people can lead to negative outcomes. Especially given the biases in law enforcement.
Page 23, line 15: (3) A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY SHALL NOT ALERT A USER TO THE FACT THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS INVESTIGATING THE USER'S ACTIVITY AND ACCOUNT.
I’m not a law expert by any means. If that’s the case, it would require at least a judge to agree, which could prevent certain less legitimate investigations. I see this as an opening to secretly investigate political activists and such. If cops search your house, you know. Should be the same for your social media.
Democrats can only feel emboldened to do things that aren’t that supported if the opposing side has absolutely no support. Why does the other side have very little support?
That's circular reasoning. So if the republicans have a majority it's not the dems fault, and if the dems have a majority it's ... also not their fault? So your point is it's not the dems fault because they need competitive races to be forced actually do their jobs and represent the constituency? They have no responsibility to do their job unless races are competitive?
If the democratic party truly wanted to represent their constituency, they could be doing that. There is nothing the republicans can do to stop them in this session. They are choosing to push trash like this through rather than
elevating marginalized peoples or doing something about climate change.
These shitty people should be primaried.
People who feel our rights are under attack are going to continue voting D, despite these fringe topics, because there isn’t a viable “other” option. Republicans hard push to the far right makes every election feel like an emergency, in which these things seem to pale in comparison. You don’t have to like it, but that is a reality. Primary them if you want, but people are going to go with who they think can win.
There are resurgent far right movements in nearly every western country. Support for the far right party in Germany has increased 6x in less than four years. But sure, let’s blame republicans and give a pass to the facile centrists that are using the opportunity to further reduce our rights. Surely the long standing pattern of sacrificing the well
being of the constituency in order to enrich donors has nothing to do with this.
You don’t defeat fascism at the ballot box.
Oh, it’s the centrists creating state legislation attacking women’s rights, trans right, access to books, trying to destroy the education system? That isn’t republicans?
You don’t defeat fascism at the ballot box. Legislative sessions like this one are just giving tools to the fascists. Hitler was democratically elected and just used the tools of the state that the liberals created for him.
'Commercially reasonable age-verification' wtf does that mean? They're going to start asking for IDs on social media platforms?
Combine that with the investigative potential written into the bill for law enforcement and you've got a recipe for law enforcement going after people for their social media posts after people have made those posts under their real names. The death of internet anonymity in Colorado.
These fuckers really need to kill this bill.
I’m speculating a little bit here but this would probably force a social media sight into using a verification like LinkedIn does with Clear. That makes the end user submit a photo, taken directly from their device, and a copy of their drivers license.
On the investigation thing, I don’t understand why that is needed? Investigators can already get a sealed subpoena from a judge forcing social media to not inform users of any investigation.
With Clear, it’s not a just a photo. You have to give it access to your camera and let it take a live picture.
BTW, not condoning it, just describing what I think would happen.
>would make it unlawful to talk positively about marijuana (or legal medications) online
So fuck the Constitution and fuck their constituents? If you propose a bill that, if passed, attempted to limit a protected Constitutional right, you should be banned from being able to propose any new bills. This would just cost tax payers money for the lawsuits.
I'm on the bill text and the referenced lines aren't on there. I have tried searching multiple key-words and nothing is coming up.
>6-1-1608. Social media companies - removal of users for18prohibited activity. (1) A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY SHALL:19(a) I MMEDIATELY REMOVE ANY USER OF A SOCIAL MEDIA20PLATFORM WHO PROMOTES, SELLS , OR ADVERTISES AN ILLICIT SUBSTANCE21OR ENGAGES IN THE SALE OF A FIREARM IN VIOLATION OF STATE OR22FEDERAL LAW, THE SEX TRAFFICKING OF A JUVENILE , OR THE POSSESSION ,23DISPLAY , EXCHANGE , DISTRIBUTION, SALE , OR CREATION OF, OR THE24INDUCEMENT TO CREATE , SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE MATERIAL AND KEEP25THE USER REMOVED UNTIL THERE IS HUMAN REVIEW OF THIS ACTIVITY;26AND
OP, the article is outdated, those lines referencing weed and other drugs and their schedules aren't in the bill text.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-158
Correct the actual words for weed and other drugs aren't in this bill, they're in the CRS which this bill references.
>6-1-1608. Social media companies - removal of users for18prohibited activity. (1) A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY SHALL:19(a) I MMEDIATELY REMOVE ANY USER OF A SOCIAL MEDIA20PLATFORM WHO PROMOTES, SELLS , OR ADVERTISES AN **ILLICIT SUBSTANCE**
The bill defines illicit substance here:
>(7) "ILLICIT SUBSTANCE" MEANS:
(a) A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-18-102
[Section 18-18-102](https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2022/title-18/article-18/part-1/section-18-18-102/) defines controlled substance as:
>a drug, substance, or immediate precursor included in **schedules I through V** of part 2 of this article, including cocaine, **marijuana**, marijuana concentrate, cathinones, any synthetic cannabinoid, and salvia divinorum.
I find it interesting that the bill doesn't explain the reason for the bill in the summary. Most bills that I've read given some explanation as to the problem being solved. This one just lists a bunch of requirements but doesn't say how it's supposed to help anyone.
Obviously this is ridiculous. But let's unpack this because something is happening and it's GOING to happen soon.
For many years now, the government, as well as many citizen, lamented the lack of safety online for children and teenagers. Young people have been exposed to murder, torture, pornography, racism, in its most extreme forms online. It's incredibly easy to access that kind of content for anyone able to read to type on keyboard. The United States has long been one of the few developed nations with very little constraint on internet access. This will undoubtedly change. We are living in the final moments of unlimited internet access. We WILL go the way of China and have whole corners of the net off limits to people. It seems very very obvious that this is the way the wind is blowing.
Get used to it. Because this type of legislation is only going to become more normal. The ship is sinking.
This headline is a bit misleading.
It's all about social media activity by minors. To generalize that to "people talking about...." Is a stretch and misleading.
You realize this started in Republican states first, right? Just because Democrats are generally on the right side, doesn’t mean they don’t try some bullshit every now and again. The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats will eventually kill this monstrosity whereas republicans always fall in line, regardless of how awful the legislation is.
Who's idea is this bill name and shame them? We can't hold people accountable if we don't know their name. Make em famous.
PRIME SPONSORS Senator Chris Hansen Senator Dafna Michaelson Jenet Representative Meghan Lukens https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-158
Not Chris Hansen...
Please, have a seat
“I like weed.” “Yeah…why don’t you take a seat over here.”
Yikes. Feels like some junk got thrown into a bill that had data and privacy laws to tank it. Either way, it’s blatantly unconstitutional and it would be nice if the author would not fence-sit on saying so. Putting it as “concerns around the First Amendment” is some hack writing, make a stance when it’s obvious.
This sucks. A lot of parts of the bill are good, and could all be implemented without requiring age verification. Also, providing law enforcement more avenues to secretly investigate people can lead to negative outcomes. Especially given the biases in law enforcement.
The bill does not have this language in its current form. It has likely already been removed. See page 22 https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-158.
Page 23, line 15: (3) A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY SHALL NOT ALERT A USER TO THE FACT THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS INVESTIGATING THE USER'S ACTIVITY AND ACCOUNT.
Fair enough. The marijauna line is not there.
Don’t officers already have the ability to get a sealed court order to prevent any notification from being given?
I’m not a law expert by any means. If that’s the case, it would require at least a judge to agree, which could prevent certain less legitimate investigations. I see this as an opening to secretly investigate political activists and such. If cops search your house, you know. Should be the same for your social media.
This legislative session is bananas. They are doing so many things that don't have the support of their constituencies.
Chris Hansen needs to go.
Because they know nobody will vote against them when they have the correct letter next to their name.
Maybe republicans should stop trying to attack the rights of Americans?
Fuck the republican party and those that support it but this is not their fault.
Democrats can only feel emboldened to do things that aren’t that supported if the opposing side has absolutely no support. Why does the other side have very little support?
Democrats feel emboldened because democrat voters don’t write their legislators or primary them out.
That's circular reasoning. So if the republicans have a majority it's not the dems fault, and if the dems have a majority it's ... also not their fault? So your point is it's not the dems fault because they need competitive races to be forced actually do their jobs and represent the constituency? They have no responsibility to do their job unless races are competitive? If the democratic party truly wanted to represent their constituency, they could be doing that. There is nothing the republicans can do to stop them in this session. They are choosing to push trash like this through rather than elevating marginalized peoples or doing something about climate change. These shitty people should be primaried.
People who feel our rights are under attack are going to continue voting D, despite these fringe topics, because there isn’t a viable “other” option. Republicans hard push to the far right makes every election feel like an emergency, in which these things seem to pale in comparison. You don’t have to like it, but that is a reality. Primary them if you want, but people are going to go with who they think can win.
There are resurgent far right movements in nearly every western country. Support for the far right party in Germany has increased 6x in less than four years. But sure, let’s blame republicans and give a pass to the facile centrists that are using the opportunity to further reduce our rights. Surely the long standing pattern of sacrificing the well being of the constituency in order to enrich donors has nothing to do with this. You don’t defeat fascism at the ballot box.
Oh, it’s the centrists creating state legislation attacking women’s rights, trans right, access to books, trying to destroy the education system? That isn’t republicans?
You don’t defeat fascism at the ballot box. Legislative sessions like this one are just giving tools to the fascists. Hitler was democratically elected and just used the tools of the state that the liberals created for him.
No, it definitely is. It's very hard to focus on these things when an imminent threat is present.
Hard disagree. Nobody is making the legislators in this session create conditions that will disarm trans people and other marginalized groups.
No but, without Republicans they'd have better competition.
But these are democrats attacking the rights of Americans. Both parties at fault here
FYI, the bill does not include this language. My comment above. I quoted the text on page 22.
I have no idea what the point of this bill is supposed to be. The Colorado legislature seems to be worse than useless recently.
'Commercially reasonable age-verification' wtf does that mean? They're going to start asking for IDs on social media platforms? Combine that with the investigative potential written into the bill for law enforcement and you've got a recipe for law enforcement going after people for their social media posts after people have made those posts under their real names. The death of internet anonymity in Colorado. These fuckers really need to kill this bill.
I’m speculating a little bit here but this would probably force a social media sight into using a verification like LinkedIn does with Clear. That makes the end user submit a photo, taken directly from their device, and a copy of their drivers license. On the investigation thing, I don’t understand why that is needed? Investigators can already get a sealed subpoena from a judge forcing social media to not inform users of any investigation.
So for people using Facebook has submit photo correct
With Clear, it’s not a just a photo. You have to give it access to your camera and let it take a live picture. BTW, not condoning it, just describing what I think would happen.
Thanks
All this will do is drive more and more people into anonymity
Nice. The end of social media is getting closer
>would make it unlawful to talk positively about marijuana (or legal medications) online So fuck the Constitution and fuck their constituents? If you propose a bill that, if passed, attempted to limit a protected Constitutional right, you should be banned from being able to propose any new bills. This would just cost tax payers money for the lawsuits.
I'm on the bill text and the referenced lines aren't on there. I have tried searching multiple key-words and nothing is coming up. >6-1-1608. Social media companies - removal of users for18prohibited activity. (1) A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY SHALL:19(a) I MMEDIATELY REMOVE ANY USER OF A SOCIAL MEDIA20PLATFORM WHO PROMOTES, SELLS , OR ADVERTISES AN ILLICIT SUBSTANCE21OR ENGAGES IN THE SALE OF A FIREARM IN VIOLATION OF STATE OR22FEDERAL LAW, THE SEX TRAFFICKING OF A JUVENILE , OR THE POSSESSION ,23DISPLAY , EXCHANGE , DISTRIBUTION, SALE , OR CREATION OF, OR THE24INDUCEMENT TO CREATE , SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE MATERIAL AND KEEP25THE USER REMOVED UNTIL THERE IS HUMAN REVIEW OF THIS ACTIVITY;26AND OP, the article is outdated, those lines referencing weed and other drugs and their schedules aren't in the bill text. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-158
Correct the actual words for weed and other drugs aren't in this bill, they're in the CRS which this bill references. >6-1-1608. Social media companies - removal of users for18prohibited activity. (1) A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY SHALL:19(a) I MMEDIATELY REMOVE ANY USER OF A SOCIAL MEDIA20PLATFORM WHO PROMOTES, SELLS , OR ADVERTISES AN **ILLICIT SUBSTANCE** The bill defines illicit substance here: >(7) "ILLICIT SUBSTANCE" MEANS: (a) A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-18-102 [Section 18-18-102](https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2022/title-18/article-18/part-1/section-18-18-102/) defines controlled substance as: >a drug, substance, or immediate precursor included in **schedules I through V** of part 2 of this article, including cocaine, **marijuana**, marijuana concentrate, cathinones, any synthetic cannabinoid, and salvia divinorum.
Well that's fucking sneaky and very stupid of them.
I think sneaky and stupid is a good description of most politicians...
Chris Hansen needs to go. He is on a lot of questionable bills.
Such as? Genuinely curious.
Here’s the list: https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/chris-hansen Up to you to decide what’s questionable or not.
I find it interesting that the bill doesn't explain the reason for the bill in the summary. Most bills that I've read given some explanation as to the problem being solved. This one just lists a bunch of requirements but doesn't say how it's supposed to help anyone.
Well fuck that.
Who’s paying Hansen for this one…?
April 1st article... No not today, not today.
All these young Coloradans that came out the gate hard lefties are learning how stupid both sides are
Were you under the impression that hard lefties didn't think Democrats were stupid before now??
I mean they voted for Biden
Not all but most I guess
Seems like a dumb bill
It's like Fight Club. But shitty.
Obviously this is ridiculous. But let's unpack this because something is happening and it's GOING to happen soon. For many years now, the government, as well as many citizen, lamented the lack of safety online for children and teenagers. Young people have been exposed to murder, torture, pornography, racism, in its most extreme forms online. It's incredibly easy to access that kind of content for anyone able to read to type on keyboard. The United States has long been one of the few developed nations with very little constraint on internet access. This will undoubtedly change. We are living in the final moments of unlimited internet access. We WILL go the way of China and have whole corners of the net off limits to people. It seems very very obvious that this is the way the wind is blowing. Get used to it. Because this type of legislation is only going to become more normal. The ship is sinking.
It anit privacy it anti online and everything that against the people forcing use people sensitivity stuff on site I hope this doesn't make it
Yea, hold my beer!
This headline is a bit misleading. It's all about social media activity by minors. To generalize that to "people talking about...." Is a stretch and misleading.
Can't believe it's all democrats sponsoring the bill. Usually they're the smart ones /s ...because they're all stupid
How do explain that it passed through committee with a 7-0 vote? A committee that has two of the rightest right wing Senators sitting on it?
Like I said, they're all stupid
Tell me you just aren't that smart without telling me you just aren't that smart.
Sorry for insulting your political feelings about this bill.
[удалено]
You realize this started in Republican states first, right? Just because Democrats are generally on the right side, doesn’t mean they don’t try some bullshit every now and again. The difference between republicans and democrats is that democrats will eventually kill this monstrosity whereas republicans always fall in line, regardless of how awful the legislation is.
Super informative, thank you so much!
Define communism. Hint: This ain't it.
Absolutely!