• Aatube@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah, I saw the part that wasn’t crossed-out, but couldn’t find where it says Attorneys General can determine such things; I only saw where it says they can sue websites using this bill

    • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      In practice, when the AG threatens to sue and the law makes it clear that they’ll win (which KOSA currently does), companies will typically stop what they’re doing (or settle if the AG actually launches a suit)

      • Aatube@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Wouldn’t the law only make clear they’ll win if it fits the law’s definition of harm?

        • The Nexus of Privacy@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          The law’s defintion of harm is extremely broad. Charlie Jane Anders has a good discussion of this in The Internet Is About to Get a Lot Worse:

          “This clause is so vaguely defined that attorneys general can absolutely claim that queer content violates it — and they don’t even need to win these lawsuits in order to prevail. They might not even need to file a lawsuit, in fact. The mere threat of an expensive, grueling legal battle will be enough to make almost every Internet platform begin to scrub anything related to queer people.”

          • Aatube@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Hmm, I was under the impression that Attorneys General could already sue whomever they want, success rates aside. Is that not the case?