The Senate just passed a bill that will let the federal and state governments investigate and sue websites that they claim cause kids mental distress. It’s a terrible idea to let politicians and bureaucrats decide what people should read and view online, but the Senate passed KOSA on a 91-3 vote....
deleted by creator
EFF is very one-sided though. The do not give the other side as much praise.
How do you mean “the other side?” EFF has a high factuality/credibility but is marked as left of center in bias.
EFF, like ACLU, are mostly orgs that stick to their expertise. Look at entities rated as “Very High.” The climate science orgs don’t and shouldn’t give time entertaining the deranged conspiracy theories of science deniers, nor should EFF focus on advancing rhe worldviews of entities looking to limit speech on the internet. It would be like demanding AA set aside time at meetings to discuss the merits of getting black out drunk once in a while.
Sure, many sides exist. But mere existence doesn’t make them equal.
Factual reporting has nothing to do with “giving the other side …. praise”
deleted by creator
Im not saying the bias is wrong or incorrect. In fact, the EFF does great reporting.
But it is preferential and inclined reporting.
deleted by creator
Other side as in authoritarianism? No thanks.
Regardless if the other side is authoritarian or not, the EFF is very preferential and inclined in their reporting. Im not saying they’re wrong. In fact, they do great reporting. But it is biased reporting by definition.
It’s literally saying what you’re saying:
The EFF has fought many terrible patents and laws in the online era. The alternative is less rights and less innovation lmao
Exactly what “other side” do you want to see represented?