Not exactly. These bills cut across party lines and there's a lot of desire to be able to pass something -- "think of the children!" So if anything the overall gridlock makes it more likely that these bills will pass. So the dynamics that led to stopping the bills last year was a combination of activists making enough noise, and privacy and digital rights groups pressing the case in meetings with legislators (as well as some grassroots groups with good relationships with their legislators). As a result, that Dem leadership decided not to move the bills to the floor, so the vote never happened.
It turns out that crossposting to Lemmy works better from Lemmy communities. So, a Lemmy community is useful. Since I had already crated the kbin magazine and there's no way to delete magazines (!), looks like we'll experiment to see whether or not having two of them makes sense. Here's the Lemmy community I created, I'm using it for now to cross-post from other communities so that there's a single place to go for everything. !bad_internet_bills@lemmy.sdf.org
Alas, that's par for the course. But, the email they receive gets counted (and they'll often run some kind of sentiment analysis software on it) and staffers pay attention to how much mail they're getting, so it still makes a difference!
I don't trust them either, and they're very likely to move ahead with federation anyhow. It still means something that they're changing the story that they're telling.
Agreed, other laws are needed as well as this. The ADPPA consumer privacy bill is likely to get reintroduced later this session; last year's version had some good features but also a lot of weaknesses, and big tech companies and data brokes are pushing to further weaken it.
So it'll be a battle to strengthen and pass it.
But ADPPA doesn't apply to government agencies (and that's not likely to change) so bills like Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale are important complements!
No, bipartisan legislative support. It's got bipartisan co-sponsorship both in the House (Warren Davidson is an R, Sara Jacobs is a D) and Senate (Rand Paul is an R, Ron Wyden is a D). And House Judiciary Committee just voted 30-0 to advance it.
Of course as you say we don't know what's happening behind closed doors, and there are also legislators in both parties who aren' supportive, but there really is bipartisan support for this.
It's a plausible theory but at the House Judiciary Committee everybody in both parties voted "yes"! We'll see what happens as things move forward. In the Senate, Rand Paul is a co-sponsor and Mike Lee's a likely yes vote, so it's not likely to be straight party-line.
That EFF action alert is also from last session, and has the old bill number; they don't have a new one up yet as far as I know. So I linked to Free Press' action page, which is more up-to-date.
We'll see. Cynicism is certainly justified -- it's very hard to pass a good privacy bill, and last year even though everybody supported it, it died in committee. On the other hand, it really does have bipartisan support, and there Congress is deadlocked in so many areas that they have an incentive to pass something.
Also, people I've talked to at EFF, ACLU, and Free Press all think that grassroots activism can help make a difference, and that right now is a key time ... so it's worth a try.
Nobody's talking about taking the choice away from others. Some instances are saying they'll federate with Threads, you're free to move your account there. Or as you say, people who want to hang out with the bully can download the Threads app right now!
That's incorrect. Followers-only posts (and local-only posts on instances that have them) aren't public. Profiles that don't make public and unlisted posts aren't discoverable. And, as Threat modeling Meta, the fediverse, and privacy discusses, there are plenty of things that could be done to reduce the amount of data that's public.
Also, that's only one of the many reasons people oppose federating with Meta.
And from the perspective of the "free fediverse" that's not welcoming Meta, the new positioning that ActivityPub integration is "a long way out" is encouraging. OK, it's not as good as "when hell freezes over," but it's a heckuva lot better than "soon."
I think we're in violent agreement here: getting the EU to drop their objections is certainly one way around them! So yeah, they'll probably try to use the demand for Threads to push back on the DMA's anti-trust-ish provisions (which as I understand is the current blockage). And then they'll try to use their ActivityPub integration to push back on the interoperability requirements, no doubt characterizing them as unrealistic. It's predictable but still irritating.
Not at all. I talked about this in In chaos there is opportunity! Meta's potential arrival is a likely to be a good thing for the fediverse no matter whether or not they actually go forward with it.
Yes, I certainly constructed the sentence to highlight the different reactions. Later in the article I say "And by prioritizing their desire to be embraced by Meta over queer and trans people's safety, Meta's cis advocates undercut their claims to be allies in ways that may be hard to recover from" -- which is true no matter what Meta does or doesn't wind up doing with Threads. Of course it's not the only thing going on, but I think it's important enough that it's worth highlighting.
Jon @ jdp23 @lemmy.blahaj.zone Posts 16Comments 52Joined 2 yr. ago
Not exactly. These bills cut across party lines and there's a lot of desire to be able to pass something -- "think of the children!" So if anything the overall gridlock makes it more likely that these bills will pass. So the dynamics that led to stopping the bills last year was a combination of activists making enough noise, and privacy and digital rights groups pressing the case in meetings with legislators (as well as some grassroots groups with good relationships with their legislators). As a result, that Dem leadership decided not to move the bills to the floor, so the vote never happened.