#it’s like it’s written for the comprehension of childrens

[numetalkids]

made the mistake of watching a reaction channel's reaction to the latest dabi-centric episode. most people seem totally in favor of dabi getting 'what he deserves' ('he murders people! murder is bad!') while everyone is pleased to see endeavor get a second chance at life

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

average United States contains 1000s of pet tigers in backyards" factoid actualy [sic] just statistical error. average person has 0 tigers on property. Activist Georg, who lives the U.S. Capitol & makes up over 10,000 each day, has purposefully been spreading disinformation adn [sic] should not have been counted

I have a big mad today, folks. It's a really frustrating one, because years worth of work has been validated... but the reason for that fucking sucks.

For almost a decade, I've been trying to fact-check the claim that there "are 10,000 to 20,000 pet tigers/big cats in backyards in the United States." I talked to zoo, sanctuary, and private cat people; I looked at legislation, regulation, attack/death/escape incident rates; I read everything I could get my hands on. None of it made sense. None of it lined up. I couldn't find data supporting anything like the population of pet cats being alleged to exist. Some of you might remember the series I published on those findings from 2018 or so under the hashtag #CrouchingTigerHiddenData. I've continued to work on it in the six years since, including publishing a peer reviewed study that counted all the non-pet big cats in the US (because even though they're regulated, apparently nobody bothered to keep track of those either).

I spent years of my life obsessing over that statistic because it was being used to push for new federal legislation that, while well intentioned, contained language that would, and has, created real problems for ethical facilities that have big cats. I wrote a comprehensive - 35 page! - analysis of the issues with the then-current version of the Big Cat Public Safety Act in 2020. When the bill was first introduced to Congress in 2013, a lot of groups promoted it by fear mongering: there's so many pet tigers! they could be hidden around every corner! they could escape and attack you! they could come out of nowhere and eat your children!! Tiger King exposed the masses to the idea of "thousands of abused backyard big cats": as a result the messaging around the bill shifted to being welfare-focused, and the law passed in 2022.

The Big Cat Public Safety Act created a registry, and anyone who owned a private cat and wanted to keep it had to join. If they did, they could keep the animal until it passed, as long as they followed certain strictures (no getting more, no public contact, etc). Don’t register and get caught? Cat is seized and major punishment for you. Registering is therefore highly incentivized. That registry closed in June of 2023, and you can now get that registration data via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Guess how many pet big cats were registered in the whole country?

97.

Not tens of thousands. Not thousands. Not even triple digits. 97.

And that isn't even the right number! Ten USDA licensed facilities registered erroneously. That accounts for 55 of 97 animals. Which leaves us with 42 pet big cats, of all species, in the entire country.

Now, I know that not everyone may have registered. There's probably someone living deep in the woods somewhere with their illegal pet cougar, and there's been at least one random person in Texas arrested for trying to sell a cub since the law passed. But - and here's the big thing - even if there are ten times as many hidden cats than people who registered them - that's nowhere near ten thousand animals. Obviously, I had some questions.

Guess what? Turns out, this is because it was never real. That huge number never had data behind it, wasn't likely to be accurate, and the advocacy groups using that statistic to fearmonger and drive their agenda knew it... and didn't see a problem with that.

Allow me to introduce you to an article published last week.

This article is good. (Full disclose, I'm quoted in it). It's comprehensive and fairly written, and they did their due diligence reporting and fact-checking the piece. They talked to a lot of people on all sides of the story.

But thing that really gets me?

Multiple representatives from major advocacy organizations who worked on the Big Cat Publix Safety Act told the reporter that they knew the statistics they were quoting weren't real. And that they don't care. The end justifies the means, the good guys won over the bad guys, that's just how lobbying works after all. They're so blase about it, it makes my stomach hurt. Let me pull some excerpts from the quotes.

"Whatever the true number, nearly everyone in the debate acknowledges a disparity between the actual census and the figures cited by lawmakers. “The 20,000 number is not real,” said Bill Nimmo, founder of Tigers in America. (...) For his part, Nimmo at Tigers in America sees the exaggerated figure as part of the political process. Prior to the passage of the bill, he said, businesses that exhibited and bred big cats juiced the numbers, too. (...) “I’m not justifying the hyperbolic 20,000,” Nimmo said. “In the world of comparing hyperbole, the good guys won this one.”

"Michelle Sinnott, director and counsel for captive animal law enforcement at the PETA Foundation, emphasized that the law accomplished what it was set out to do. (...) Specific numbers are not what really matter, she said: “Whether there’s one big cat in a private home or whether there’s 10,000 big cats in a private home, the underlying problem of industry is still there.”"

I have no problem with a law ending the private ownership of big cats, and with ending cub petting practices. What I do have a problem with is that these organizations purposefully spread disinformation for years in order to push for it. By their own admission, they repeatedly and intentionally promoted false statistics within Congress. For a decade.

No wonder it never made sense. No wonder no matter where I looked, I couldn't figure out how any of these groups got those numbers, why there was never any data to back any of the claims up, why everything I learned seemed to actively contradict it. It was never real. These people decided the truth didn't matter. They knew they had no proof, couldn't verify their shocking numbers... and they decided that was fine, if it achieved the end they wanted.

So members of the public - probably like you, reading this - and legislators who care about big cats and want to see legislation exist to protect them? They got played, got fed false information through a TV show designed to tug at heartstrings, and it got a law through Congress that's causing real problems for ethical captive big cat management. The 20,000 pet cat number was too sexy - too much of a crisis - for anyone to want to look past it and check that the language of the law wouldn't mess things up up for good zoos and sanctuaries. Whoops! At least the "bad guys" lost, right? (The problems are covered somewhat in the article linked, and I'll go into more details in a future post. You can also read my analysis from 2020, linked up top.)

Now, I know. Something something something facts don't matter this much in our post-truth era, stop caring so much, that's just how politics work, etc. I’m sorry, but no. Absolutely not.

Laws that will impact the welfare of living animals must be crafted carefully, thoughtfully, and precisely in order to ensure they achieve their goals without accidental negative impacts. We have a duty of care to ensure that. And in this case, the law also impacts reservoir populations for critically endangered species! We can't get those back if we mess them up. So maybe, just maybe, if legislators hadn't been so focused on all those alleged pet cats, the bill could have been written narrowly and precisely.

But the minutiae of regulatory impacts aren't sexy, and tiger abuse and TV shows about terrible people are. We all got misled, and now we're here, and the animals in good facilities are already paying for it.

I don't have a conclusion. I'm just mad. The public deserves to know the truth about animal legislation they're voting for, and I hope we all call on our legislators in the future to be far more critical of the data they get fed.

[lesbiten]

also, and i feel this way about almost every warrior cats book with a female pov character, but the reasons people hate this book are kind of shitty! i heard a lot about this book trying to "justify leopardstars actions" and about how it made her even more unlikeable to them. and like...maybe its just because im not at the tigerclan section yet, but so far i dont feel like her actions have been justified by the narrative? of course its going to feel like the narration is justifying her actions. because. SHES THE ONE NARRATING IT!!!!! and she thinks shes right in everything she does. duh. but the narrative itself is constantly giving her shit (having all of her loved ones die for her actions) for being reckless and self absorbed. the book knows that shes not a good person but the average man reading it does not know what an unreliable narrator is. why didnt more people talk about the weird random romance forced between her and frogleap to give her something to "choose" between being deputy or not? how this book reinforces the common wc trope of men never having to sacrifice anything for love while the female characters always have to put their careers and lives on the line every single time. also the continued shitty views on adoption and how adopted children are never viewed even remotely close to the same level as biological children. why are we still leaving silverstream out or pointedly separating her when listing sunfish's kits!

[keepittoyourshelf]

Since the algorithm on my various socials thinks I actually want to see a ton of people simping over Rhys and ACOTAR, let’s get down to the bones of why that algorithm is fucked beyond all comprehension, shall we?

I’ve never hidden the fact that I’m pro-Tamlin, not in the sense that I approve of what he did, but from the place that I believe he’s worthy of forgiveness in the same way any of the men that SJM otherwise glorifies in her work is worthy of it for any of their transgressions.

I shouldn’t have to do a paint by numbers thing here to make this obvious, but based on the actual text written by SJM in her own words, Tamlin has objectively done nothing better or worse than Rhysand has.

The big complaint is his temper, of course, and pro-Rhysies love to bullshit about how the red flags were all over book 1 and SJM is such a master at foreshadowing.

He locked Feyre in a house against her will to protect her, when she clearly didn’t want to be caged. How is that any worse than Rhysand…drugging her and making her give him lap dances, in order to protect her, when she clearly didn’t want to be dancing naked in front of strangers?

Go on. I’ll wait for your rationalization.

Rhysand’s whole shtick was that he’s only playing the villain to keep Velaris (and only Velaris) safe…those fucks in the Hewn City can eat a bag of dicks, right? But tell me again how Tamlin is the really bad one for enforcing a tithe because it’s unfair to those who can’t afford it (fair point). But Rhysand chooses to save the one city in his court that has zero problems. Let’s let those that might already be suffering from poverty get kidnapped and tortured by a psychopath. That’s probably better than a tithe, right?

And let’s not forget how Tamlin mocked Feyre and Rhys at the High Lords meeting. While funny, it was in poor taste. At least Rhysand didn’t publicly mock Tamlin. He had the decency to do it privately when he went out of his way to go to a deeply troubled man’s house and, in the midst of an obvious mental health crisis, not only had the gall to ask for resources from a man that has no resources because his own wife fucking destroyed them out of spite, but proceeds to rub in his triumph over a man that has nothing left. Nothing to see there, right?

Even if you could ignore all of that (and you’d have to be willfully fucking thick to do so, which a lot of these people are), I shall leave you with Tamlin’s role as a spy for Hybern. That’s obviously supposed to be a real shock because TaMliN BaD at this point, so why would anyone believe him? It’s not like he had a really good explanation like Rhys gave when he murdered literal children and innocents just to ensure Amarantha didn’t know how noble he actually was. Right? RIGHT?! And it’s not like anyone would have a harder time believing someone who had played evil and done actually evil things for the “greater good” (a collectivist dog whistle if there ever was one) for fifty fucking years over the dude that suddenly goes bad after being a progressive and respected high lord for the same period of time? I mean, it’s not like we’re dealing with severe mental anguish and trauma here. That’s crazy talk.

Shadow Daddy does no wrong. Even when he does. Because reasons.

Those idiots on TikTok making stupid videos showing their bf’s being all shocked and I KNEW IT when Tamlin “turns” can chew glass along with all those dipshits selling mugs that say “Tamlin’s Tears” on Etsy right next to merch glorifying a man that literally gaslit his soulmate into believing that forced drunken naked lap dances were actually a good thing, when you think about it.

SJM isn’t a master of foreshadowing. She’s a sloppy writer of moderately entertaining fiction that has a kink for glorifying severely unhealthy behaviors without the benefit of a trigger warning.

Fuck off if you think that’s all okay and think that anyone that says Tamlin isn’t any worse comparatively is the crazy one. Projection is a real disorder. Look it up. Right after you order your 543rd Rhysand candle.

[aheathen-conceivably]

Dearest Zelda,

First let me say what a joy it was to receive your latest letter! Truly I was so delighted upon seeing it in the mailbox that I ran straight for Isaiah. He is not one to worry, but when our latest contact to the address we had for you in New Orleans once again went unanswered, I fear even he had begun to grow concerned. 

I am delighted to read that your silence was not without good reason, and to see the wedding portrait you sent of you and Antoine as well as the photo of your daughter. How she has grown since we last saw her! She is not much younger than our eldest now, who I fear every day is so like your brother there is simply no one thing in this world that can tame her.

It does sound like your Violette is much the same, and how much joy it brings me to think that perhaps it is Florence’s spirit manifesting through them.

Our youngest have also begun to grow like weeds, much to my chagrin. Does it ever seem like sometimes you awaken and it’s as though the grass has grown a foot overnight? That is oft how I feel looking at them, and Rosalie seems to desire all the independence of her namesake. 

She wasn’t but a day over six when she began poking into Rosella’s old room, curiously pulling forth toys and books from the gathered dust like a miniature treasure hunter. Truthfully, I could not tell you why your brother and I had yet to bring the room back into the light of day. Once you took the portrait from it it was like a pall had lifted, but I feared that stirring it would upset your brother’s long-standing grief over your mother, so I daren’t say a word. 

But as children often do, Rosalie saw little of that other than a space to call her own, and we have now finally found the heart through her to give it a new life. I do hope your sister would love to see her in there, playing dolls and writing grand romantic stories for them aloud to her ever attentive twin. It is a joy to see them rediscover the beauty in the world that pain often hides, is it not?

Have you written to Virginia as well? I fear she may not be quite as conscious of the time that has gone by. With the dissolution of The Women’s Political and Social Union, her work has turned increasingly to involvement with the Women’s Labor League, eventually coming to the attention of the Labor Party themselves. 

I will admit that I am not as informed on the goings on of London as I perhaps should be, but even still it came as no surprise when the party nominated her as their candidate for Member of Parliament. As she so painstakingly explained it, the party itself has suffered great losses from their prominence in the 20s, what with the general bias of their associations with the communists and their seeming inability to stop the rampant unemployment that has taken hold even here. 

I suppose she is fully aware that this was the cause for her nomination, as she was able to run more on the merit of her charitable associations than the negative reputation the party has recently taken on. Yet if she was surprised that this platform worked, she has never let on; but her work in the House of Commons has all but taken over her life since her election in 1931. How I do miss her and Wally, but that doesn’t stop me from wishing that she keeps her seat in the upcoming election of ‘35, even if it means we will see less of them than ever.

I imagine that what little free time she has is now spent nearby at Oxford, where Wally was accepted upon his graduation from secondary school. While I’m sure being the son of a governing member of parliament was not a mark against him, I have no doubt he was accepted there on the merits of his intelligence alone. Even from the small amount of time he spent here in his teen years, it was clear to me what a bright boy he was. 

I am told he is majoring in physics there, a field that even in the briefest explanations Virginia has given me is quite beyond my comprehension. I suppose what else are we to expect with Virginia as his mother? I’m sure he’s had but the most informative, intellectual upbringing, even when it must have been colored by the high expectations that I can only imagine your sister set for him.

Despite her near constant work and best attempts to shield her vulnerability, there are moments when we speak and it seems as though Wally's departure brought forth much of the buried sentimentality within her. I suppose under it all she is but a mother like us all, proud of her child and yet sorrowful as his life grows beyond her own.

Before I sign off your brother has instructed me to ask you to include the most minute of details regarding your predicaments with the soil in your next letter. He has also asked me to attach a veritable field guide of advice, although I have told him that everything you have written points to the fact that you are in waters we could not navigate any better even if we tried.

I must admit that when I hear the word soil I think simply of the ground beneath verdant green grasses or darkened Bramblewood canopies. It makes me realize just how little of the world I have seen, but also how lucky we have been even in the throes of what seem to be such tumultuous times. I can only hope that such good fortune will last in England for many years to come, and that some of our knowledge may bring success to your efforts as well.

I must once again thank you for the photo of you and Antoine on your wedding day. We’ve placed it in our living room next to the photo of your mother and father when they were wed, as seems only right. In return I have also included a photo of all of us when we were last together to visit Wally’s new home in Oxford; although I’ll be the first to admit I do hope we spend the next high holiday together in Henford instead. Anything that close to London makes me long for the forest more than anything else.

Your mother once told me that she sent you every photo we took, and that you have been collecting them over the years. I hope this can make a welcome addition to such a tradition, and do always know that you are welcome here should you ever find need of solace in the place you once called home. 

Your sister in marriage,

 Summer Darlington

[gobbogoo]

How Good Can The TF2 Mercenaries Read?

Heavy: PHD-level reading comprehension! ...in Russian. Knows how to read only basic English, mainly what's relevant to his job. Enjoys writing simple messages to the enemy on the bomb cart. (Dear Red, yer dead!)

Scout: Barely literate. Knows basics necessary for children's comics, but gets caught up on stuff like "ch = sh" in words like "machine," or the extra "b" on the end of "bomb." Mostly relies in guess-work.

Medic: Can read and write both English and German, although his knowledge of the prior stems primarily from medical vocabulary. Has to concentrate when reading more dense English texts.

Spy: Can fluently read English, French, Spanish, Morse Code, and several other languages. The most literate of the team by a long shot.

Engineer: Excellent reading comprehension and vocabulary, as well as an understanding of technical writing. Poetry and metaphor fly right over his head, though. If you're trying to say something, just say it! Sticks strictly to nonfiction.

Sniper: Average reading/writing comprehension. Values books both for information/entertainment and toilet paper/kindling.

Soldier: Has a child's writing/reading comprehension (nothing above a single syllable) UNLESS the text is related to military lingo or legal jargon, both of which he will understand but wildly misinterpret. He often gets bored after the first sentence, so he just guesses what the rest of the text is about and then fully believes that guess with 110% of his soul.

Demoman: Slightly better reading comprehension then Sniper, due to a childhood spent studying chemistry, ballistics, Scottish history, and the Bombinomicon that one time. Nowadays, he isn't often sober enough to make out the words, though. Has memorized the blurry shapes of all the chemicals he uses.

Pyro: A weird case. Pyro-Vision Goggles tells us that Pyro perceives written language as variations of "mmmph," however they seem to derive some meaning from this as they're seen reading a newspaper in the comics. Presumably whatever they "read" is different from what's actually written, though, so it's still inaccurate to say they know how to read English.

BONUS:

Pauling: Has fully mastered speed-reading, and spends a great deal of her time writing/reading documents. She's also a huge fantasy nerd, but hasn't had time to read any in years.

Saxton Hale: Has surprisingly sound reading comprehension, but has Bidwell read everything for him whenever possible. Also authors the official Saxton Hale comics through dictation, but never writes any of it personally to avoid liability.

The Administrator: [Classified]

[ao3cassandraic]

Angels, demons, language, and culture part 4: Literalism and metaphor

Part 1 (angels are never children, and that matters), Part 2 (written language is mostly coded human rather than ethereal/occult in Good Omens), Part 3 (human writings contain useful social rules, which is partly why Aziraphale values them)

It may be time to restate @thundercrackfic's original questions?

How good is Aziraphale’s reading comprehension? How much does he understand subtext and metaphor? Because his behavior this season struck me with the impression that he didn’t really understand the books he collects. He’s clever at puzzle solving, and contains vast knowledge; but he always seems to take things at face value (when he’s not willfully misunderstanding), and refuses to give up black-and-white thinking, which would make it very difficult to analyze texts.

I think there are definite reasons to believe that reading comprehension of human literature (as defined in the question) is difficult for Aziraphale. One of them, as stated in part 1, is that Aziraphale doesn't get the tremendous advantage of childhood and its brain plasticity, which (among other things) is known to help with learning language. I'm not surprised his French is pretty bad. Learning another language from the ground up as an adult can be a cast-iron PITA (yes, experience speaking).

Another is simply that Aziraphale is not human. He's an outsider to humanity. He's fairly empathetic, and he does learn (unlike almost all his fellow angels!), but that leaves him without much of a yardstick to gauge when human literature is being literal and when it's not. There also seems to be a general angelic tendency to believe what they're told? Muriel definitely has it, Michael seems to as well, and even s1!Gabriel can only (and barely) muster skepticism on one occasion that I recall (the photo incident). I can see this making Aziraphale's reading, especially early in his existence on Earth, a good bit harder for him than reading is for, say, me. I'm used to unreliable narrators and figurative language and other sorts of clever fun productive lying. Aziraphale's acquaintance with lying is -- well -- his lies don't usually involve much metaphor? I suppose one could argue that "big sharp cutty thing" is a kenning, but not really in the human way of kennings because he only uses it the once.

Moreover, it appears (based on the s1e3 cold open, mostly) that he bops around the world quite a bit until finally settling in London (with the occasional jaunt elsewhere when he gets peckish). Nothing at his creation other than the auto-polyglottism She bestows on Her angels seems to give him any tools for navigating the bewildering variety of human cultures and customs... and literary metaphor (along with lots of other literary things) is commonly culturally-bound, culturally-specific.

I mean, if you read something (maybe in high school (or analogue) or college) that was written A Long Time Ago and/or Very Far Away, didn't it probably have a ton of what lit-critters call "apparatus" in it? Explanatory introductions, bibliography, and above all footnotes/endnotes/margin notes, many of which explain figures of speech that otherwise wouldn't make sense? Not to mention stuff like (just as an example) which local then-current political morass Dante threw this particular historical person in this particular circle of Hell for. Stuff that if you're not there, not embedded in the culture and the time, you're just plain gonna whiff. Hell, even Shakespeare editions have a ton of apparatus, and Shakespeare's in Early Modern English for pity's sake!

(Which is not to say that something has to be ancient or not-from-here to benefit from some apparatus. What is The Annotated Pratchett File if not apparatus for Discworld?)

So our peripatetic angel reading literature of whatever time he's actually in (which mostly won't have apparatus he can rely on for help) will often find himself not clued-in enough to a given human culture to completely understand its literary figures, metaphors included. And sure, that's going to lead to some misreadings and misunderstandings and overliteral takes! I can't read Dante's Inferno and understand everything in it! It takes Italianists years, if not decades, to do that!

And to make the problem even more difficult, literature feeds on itself, and on other arts as well. (Hi hi hello, comparative literature major, I totally studied various flows of literary and artistic influence in college and wouldn't trade that major for anything ever, it was the best major.) Think about all the time and effort GO meta-ists have spent of late teasing out callbacks and allusions and references in GO s2. That kind of work is also part of what Aziraphale has to do to understand fully what he reads... and it's a lot of work, even for a reader as voracious and possibly sleepless as our angel.

So yeah, in sum, I don't think Aziraphale has a perfect -- or even good -- track record on understanding what he reads. I adore him because he reads anyway! He never gives up on trying to understand! That's absolutely praiseworthy! (Crowley has something of an analogue to this in his love for human inventions. He doesn't understand how anything actually works, for the most part, but he loves it all the same.)

I think there's also an outstanding question about what Aziraphale gains from reading, a sense of social rules (Part 3) aside? Well, it's known that reading (especially fiction, especially fiction about characters who are Not Like The Reader) increases empathy. I don't know if Aziraphale reads specifically for that reason, but I'm absolutely willing to believe that fiction works on him that way, just as it does on us, even if he doesn't fully understand everything he reads. Did you fully understand everything you read as a child? Or even as an adult? I would never claim that of myself. Yet I certainly will claim that I picked up a lot of what I suppose I will call my character -- it runs deeper than personality -- and my general understanding of life (insofar as I have one) from reading.

If I had to answer why Aziraphale reads, though? I'd think back to my own childhood, as a bullied child with somewhat neglectful parents who held outsized expectations of me. Reading for me was peace, was escape, was enjoyment, was something to think about that wasn't my own unhappiness, was -- now and then, honestly not often enough -- seeing myself reflected in a book and feeling less alone. I hope and believe that human literature and music served similar purposes for our poor angel.

[carriesthewind]

I can't stop thinking about the notes on this rage-bait post about To Kill a Mockingbird.

Some of it is the sheer number of people falling for the bait and believing that the school district in question banned the novel:

But there's also this...tone to so many of the notes that I find fascinating. And I think two sets of comments illustrate why:

Every time I look at these tags I feel like there is something more to unpack. If I am being kind of flip, I can roll my eyes at someone "sigh[ing] at the lack of reading comprehension" while falling for outrage bait.

But more seriously, I feel like this comment is completely right about needing to be uncomfortable and leave sterile environments in order to grown and change...but that comment exists in the context of the writer being so deeply uncomfortable at the mere idea that an over 60 year old book will no longer be taught to some children that they completely fail to interrogate the underlying story. There's a failure to take the next step. It's possible the writer was uncomfortable when they first read the novel, but to quote a tag I didn't capture here, it's "one of [their] favorite books." The book doesn't make *them* uncomfortable at all. The writer is not willing to interrogate that the school district might have had good reasons for switching the book out of the curriculum. Instead, they assume that the reasons are because "people don't understand" the book - the writer "see[s] what they look for."

I love To Kill a Mockingbird. (Hell, I'm one of those white future-public defenders who read the book and saw the movie and watched Atticus with my soul in my throat and, while I was not directly inspired by him, he resonated with a deep part of me.) It would be an uphill debate to convince me to remove it from a teaching curriculum - but then again, I'm not in charge of any teaching curriculum and have zero relevant expertise. I've read now a number of different articles and reactions to this incident, and the reactions rarely have anything to do with the reality of what decisions were made and why. You have to jump through numerous links to find what appears to be the original parent complaint:

Yolanda Williams said she found out that students were saying the N-word and laughing in the classroom, and it was offensive. “Students were laughing out loud at the teacher’s response. That’s unacceptable to me,” she told the board. “Is there not a better way to teach about that era and the horrors of that era, other than having kids laughing in class when the N-word is said? It should not be required reading for all students. My child shouldn’t have to sit in that class like that.” “It’s not a conducive environment,” Yolanda Williams said. “It’s not just the book, but supplemental material that had the N-word.

(How much do we value, how do we weigh, one way of learning about the history of racism, against the pain of a black child? Whose comfort are we willing to sacrifice, and for what?)

The second comment I come back to is much shorter, but I feel like it's where everything fell in to place for me:

Were the people made uncomfortable by the book white people? How many of them? I don't know for sure - although I know at least one of the parents, as quoted above, was black - and neither do any of the commenters.

Why do we read "people" and see "white people?" And in a way, I'm asking a rhetorical question - because of course we do, because the tweet is set up that day. And, even more so, of course we do - because the people the book is for are white people.

To go back to the previous comment, the one I can't stop unpacking: the writer quotes a famous line from the book, "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."

And yes, I love this quote.

But.

But.

To Kill a Mockingbird was written by Harper Lee, a white woman.

The narrator of the book is Scout, a white child.

The hero of the book is Atticus, her white father.

The embodiment of the theme, the person whose skin Scout tries to step into, is Boo Radley, another white man.

Do you remember, the man who was murdered? Do you see him in that picture at the top of the post? How long does it take you to remember his name?

When do we step into his skin? When do we walk around with his perspective?

I love To Kill a Mockingbird. But if a school district wanted to teach a book to embody this quote, aren't there so many better ones?

Another commenter on the post appears to have actual lived experience with this book being removed from the teaching curriculum.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Meghan’s Lies

by request of @britishroyalfamilyvideos​

Not comprehensive - this is just what I’ve tracked and they are not in any order. If I’ve missed any, add to the comments.

Meghan grew up an only child, never had any kind of relationship with Sam or Tom while growing up.

Meghan grew up in near-poverty where the $5 Sizzler buffet was a splurge.

Meghan didn’t know who Diana or the Royal Family was.

Meghan didn’t know that Diana did the Panorama interview.

Meghan told a television production she was union when she actually wasn’t.

Meghan’s character was being written off Suits because she was marrying Harry. (She was actually written off because Patrick Adams wanted out and her character was tied to his storylines.)

Meghan doesn’t have any family except Doria.

Meghan paid for college herself with her own student loans. (Thomas did; has receipts.)

Meghan has degrees in international relations and theatre from Northwestern University. (It’s actually a degree in communications, according to the commencement booklet.)

Meghan hated Britain because they were racists.

The Sussexes were more popular in Australasia than the Cambridges were.

Meghan didn’t want to serve newborn Archie on a silver platter to the British media.

Meghan wasn’t allowed to do a photocall at the hospital after Archie was born.

Meghan never talked to Oprah before Megxit.

Meghan wasn’t working with UK Vogue on a special edition.

Meghan couldn’t wear the same color of clothing as anyone else.

Meghan could only wear neutral-colored clothing.

Meghan was never going to dress her children like Kate’s Victorian ghost dolls.

Meghan was going to get her UK citizenship.

Meghan gave up her Hollywood team.

Meghan didn’t want a big public wedding and was forced into the big public spectacle by the royal family.

Meghan and Harry eloped three days before the Windsor spectacle with the Archbishop of Canterbury in their garden at Kensington Palace.

Meghan loves her engagement ring.

Meghan and Harry received permission from The Queen to name their daughter Lilibet.

Meghan loves Africa.

Meghan is committed and passionate about charity work and philanthropy.

There are no tabloids in the U.S.

All Americans have a rude, demanding, and 5am work ethic.

Paparazzi car chases

(All the times Meghan plagiarized quotes from others in her speeches)

Meghan frequented Korean spas in L.A. as a child.

Meghan didn’t collaborate with Scobie on Finding Freedom.

Meghan didn’t expect Thomas to publish her private letter.

The royals were the family Meghan never had.

The royals never welcomed Meghan into the fold.

The royals never gave Meghan any kind of help or training.

Meghan gave up everything for Harry.

Meghan didn’t announce her pregnancy at Eugenie’s wedding.

Meghan loves kids and couldn’t wait to be a mom.

Meghan’s dog was too old to fly overseas.

Meghan wasn’t allowed to decorate their home with items from the Royal Collection.

Kate made Meghan cry.

Meghan had a warm, friendly relationship with The Queen.

Meghan is the best boss ever.

Meghan made her own banana bread in Australia. (It was the Governor’s House chef.)

Meghan had suicidal thoughts the night of the Cirque du Soleil event and couldn’t stop crying at the event.

The royal family never helped Meghan with her mental health.

Meghan is being advised by the Obamas post-Megxit.

The children were refused titles by the BRF because they were racist.

Meghan refused titles for the children.

Meghan had a fish tacos lunch with Michelle Obama.

Meghan was pen pals with Hillary Clinton. (We know now that Thomas intervened on this.)

Meghan witnessed the LA riots.

Meghan supports independent grassroots journalism.

Meghan was going to hit the ground running in Britain after the wedding.

Her height. (She claims to be 5′6...maybe in heels.)

Meghan worked at the US embassy in Argentina. (She did a summer study program and ended up dropping out.)

Meghan didn’t know she had to curtsy to The Queen.

The BRF took her passport and car keys after the wedding and never let her travel.

Meghan wasn’t allowed to leave Nottingham Cottage or Frogmore Cottage unless it was for a work engagement.

They were evicted from Frogmore Cottage. (Netflix docuseries shows they were moving out June 2022.)

Meghan was concerned for her privacy in London and wanted to move back to L.A. because there were no paparazzi.

Archie was denied 24/7 protection by the royal family because he didn’t have a HRH and wasn’t a prince.

The family gossiped about Archie’s skin color and made racist comments to her about him.

The palace forced Meghan to take her name off Archie’s birth certificate. (Archie’s first birth certificate had his mother as Rachel Meghan, HRH The Duchess of Sussex. This birth certificate was later amended to have his mother as HRH The Duchess of Sussex.)

There was egg in the wedding food.

Meghan wasn’t allowed to have scents in St. George’s Church. (She wasn’t allowed to spray perfumes, but could have candles.)

The palace has Archie’s birth certificate locked under file and won’t give it to Meghan, so she can’t register him for school.

Meghan wasn’t allowed to do hair trials with her wedding tiara by Angela Kelly.

Meghan was the new Bond Girl.

Fire in Archie’s nursery in South Africa.

Meghan said titles are not important - people should be linked, not ranked.

Archie was too young to fly to Balmoral after he was born. (And yet they took him on 4 international private flights with Elton John...)

Meghan lied about her age. (This was while she was a working actress in Hollywood. Her age has been corrected so it’s not really a lie anymore.)

Belly padding during the pregnancy with Archie.

Sussex Royal had organic innate popularity on social media. Absolutely no bots were involved at all!

Circumstances of the miscarriage. (There are four different stories out there.)

Zoom calls with the Cambridge children during COVID lockdowns.

Zoom calls with The Queen during COVID lockdowns.

Flowers on Philip’s casket were from the Sussexes.

The Sussexes were invited to the Beckham wedding.

Lili would have a royal christening with The Queen.

Lili was christened.

The Sussexes were invited to the diplomatic reception held before The Queen’s funeral.

Meghan is best friends with Jennifer Aniston and they walk their dogs together all the time.

The children’s appearances are often edited/Photoshopped in published photographs.

Edit: More from the comments - credit to the blogs

Meghan didn’t have friends in school. (@rosesandmoonstones)

Meghan was prom queen. (@rosesandmoonstones)

Circumstances of the “racist royal” remarks (@scorpiotwentythree)

Meghan received a standing ovation at the UN, led by Ban Ki Moon (@scorpiotwentythree!)

The type of ambassador role Meghan had for the UN pre-Harry.

Meghan met The Queen in Balmoral over tea just after starting to date Harry in mid-2016. (@scorpiotwentythree)

“No one asked me if I’m okay.” (@rosesandmoonstones)

Meghan didn’t know racism till she arrived in the UK. (@jillydillypickles)

South Africans danced in the streets for the Sussex wedding. (@jillydillypickles)

[bump-inthe-night]

The Hazbin Hotel fandom has serious problems with reading comprehension. I legit pointed out rapists are human, like how despite their evkl and that rape happens in the animal kingdom when someone tried saying even dogs don't do that, which is a lie.

I got called a rape apologia and people thought I was defending Val being a rapist. Like huh? I swear these people are children and if you dare disagree, you are defending rape as just drown people out by saying rape has no excuses which wouldn't be an issue if they didn't say murder have justifications.

These people do not know what justifiable homicide or self defense are and they keep misusing the word murder to describe situations where I'd be understandable to kill someone and reason gets drowned out by emotional appeals. Literally none of the characters in the cast are in Hell because they killed in someone in self defense, everyone we see clearly enjoys murdering people or at best are indifferent to it.

Vivziepop fans believe explaining that abusers, rapists and murderers have personalities and interests outside of harming people, you’re “defending” them and trying to excuse their actions.

If you want Valentino and Stella to be better written have actual personalities instead of one-dimensional abusers then you “must” support awful shit like this in real-life 🤦🏾‍♀️

[alex-the-bard]

i finished the KOSA

On the Subject of Safety 

Blaine/Alex Smith 

A paper on the harmful effects of the Kid’s Online Safety Act (informally known as KOSA) on the internet as a whole, as written by a minor. 

Censorship. Control. Tyranny. All of these will come to pass if we allow the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) to become law and cause the internet as we know it to cease to exist, completely and utterly. KOSA is a new bill that has been introduced by senators Blumenthal and Blackburn, which has the stated goal “to protect the safety of children on the internet” (found on the official website of the United States Congress, here.) This is either a lie, or an incredibly misguided attempt to do what it says it sets out to do. Though it is more likely a lie, or at the very least not the entire truth. First, I must note, if for no other reason than posterity and comprehensiveness, that the bill was introduced by both a Republican senator (Blackburn) and a Democratic senator (Blumenthal). It was also backed by twenty-one Democrats (Lujan, Baldwin, Klobuchar, Peters, Hickenlooper, Warner, Coons, Schatz, Murphy, Welch, Hassan, Durbin, Casey, Whitehouse, Kelly, Carper, Cardin, Menendez, Warren, Kaine, and Shaheen) and nineteen Republicans (Capito, Cassidy, Ernst, Daines, Rubio, Sullivan, Young, Grassley, Graham, Marshall, Hyde-Smith, Mullin, Risch, Britt, Lummis, Murkowski, Lankford, Crapo, and Hawley). That totals forty-two supporters of this heinous piece of legislature. Considering that there are one-hundred Senators, if you do some simple math, you will realize that fifty-eight Senators did not support KOSA. In the context of this monumental decision, that is a frighteningly close vote. If this bill were to pass, nearly all online fandom presence would be completely eradicated, and online privacy, as well as personal autonomy, would become nonexistent. And so, I say it again, KOSA supporters are just barely not the majority in the Senate, by a margin of sixteen individuals. Even though the rewrite of the bill is a slight improvement, at it’s core, KOSA is still a harmful internet censorship bill that will damage the very communities it claims to try protect. 

In this bill, a “child” is defined as any person under the age of thirteen, and a “minor” is defined as any person under the age of seventeen. A "parent” is defined as any legal adult who is the biological or adopted parent of a minor, or holds legal custody over a minor. “Compulsive usage” is defined as “any response stimulated by external factors that causes an individual to engage in repetitive behavior reasonably likely to cause psychological distress, loss of control, anxiety or depression”, “Covered platforms” are defined as “an online platform (i.e. Snapchat, Tumblr, Reddit, Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, etc.), online video game (i.e. Helldivers 2, Halo, Mario Kart, Civilization 6, etc.), messaging platform (i.e. Snapchat, 4chan, etc.), or video streaming service (i.e. Twitch, YouTube, etc.) that connects to the internet that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor” with the exception of “an entity acting in its capacity of: a common carrier service subject to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and all Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, a broadband internet access service (as such term is defined for purposes of section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation), an email service, a teleconferencing or video conferencing service that allows reception and transmission of audio and video signals for real-time communication, provided that it is not an online platform, including a social media service or social network; and the real-time communication is initiated using a unique link or identifier to facilitate access, or a wireless messaging service, including such a service provided through short messaging service or multimedia messaging service protocols, that is not a component of or linked to an online platform and where the predominant or exclusive function is direct messaging consisting of the transmission of text, photos or videos that are sent by electronic means, where messages are transmitted from the sender to a recipient, and are not posted within an online platform or publicly, an organization not organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members, any public or private institution of education, a library, a news platform where the inclusion of video content on the platform is related to the platform’s own gathering, reporting or publishing of news content or the website or app is not otherwise an online platform, a product or service the primarily functions as a business to business software or a VPN or similar service that exists solely to route internet traffic between locations. 

Geolocation is defined as “information sufficient to identify a street name and name of a city or town.” Individual-specific advertising to minors is defined as any form of targeted advertising towards a person who is or reasonably could be a minor, with the exception of advertising in the context of the website or app the advertising is present on, (i.e. an ad for Grammarly on a dictionary website), or for research on the effectiveness of the advertising. The rule of construction is stated to be that "no part of KOSA should be misconstrued to prohibit a lawfully operating entity from delivering content to any person that they know to be or reasonably believe is over the age of seventeen, provided that content is appropriate for the age of the person involved". To "know" something in the context of this bill is to have actual information, or to have information that is fairly implied or assumed under the basis of objective circumstances. A “mental health disorder” is defined as “a condition which causes a clinically significant disturbance or impairment on one’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behavior. “Online platform” is defined as any public platform that mainly provides a means of communication through the form of a public forum or private chatroom (i.e., Discord, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, TikTok, etc.). An “online video game” is defined as any video game or game-adjacent service, including those that provide an educational element, that allows users to create or upload content, engage in microtransactions, communicate with other users, or includes minor specific advertising (i.e., Happy Wheels, Adventure Academy, Meet Your Maker, etc.). “Personal data” is defined as any data or information that is linked or could reasonably be linked to a minor. A “personalized recommendation system (PRS)” is defined as any system that presents content to a user based on date and/or analytics from the user or similar users (i.e., a like-based system, a view-based system, a “for you” system, or a “people that watched also liked” system). Finally, “sexual exploitation or abuse” is defined as: coercion and enticement, as described in section 2422 of title 18, United States Code, child sexual abuse material, as described in sections 2251, 2252, 2252A, and 2260 of title 18, United States Code, trafficking for the production of images (child pornography), as described in section 2251A of title 18, United States Code, or sex trafficking of children, as described in section 1591 of title 18, United States Code. 

Before I continue with this paper, I would like to draw attention to the fact that nowhere in the defined terms does it define any form of physical, mental, or emotional violence towards minors, only sexual abuse or assault. This will become important later. 

Continuing with the bill, we arrive at the actual regulations, policies and laws proposed by the bill. Here begins Section 3 of the bill, or “Duty of care”. This section includes regulations on the online platform used by a minor, and the duties of it and its owner(s), creator(s), moderator(s), or manager(s). In this section, it is stated that a covered platform must, to the best of its reasonable ability, limit the following harms or dangers to any person who is known to be or reasonably believed to be a minor: 

Anxiety, depression, substance use disorders, suicidal disorders, and other similar conditions. 

Patterns of use that promote or encourage addiction-like behavior. 

Physical violence, online bullying, and harassment of the minor. 

Sexual exploitation or abuse. 

Promotion and marketing of narcotic drugs (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol. 

Predatory, unfair, or deceptive marketing, or other financial harms. 

With the exception of: 

Any content that is deliberately, independently, and willingly requested or sought out by the minor. 

Any platform that provides resources or information to help mitigate the aforementioned harms to the minor. 

Again, I call attention to the fact that although physical violence is now mentioned and prohibited, it is done so by burying it in the middle of a wall of text. With as touchy of a subject as this is, one would think that more attention would be drawn to it. 

And now we get into the meat and potatoes of this rotten bill, with Section 4, or “Safeguards for minors”. In this section, it is stated that any covered platform shall provide any user who is known to be a minor or is reasonably believed to be a minor, with easy-to-use and readily accessible “safeguards” such as: 

Limiting the ability of other individuals to communicate with the minor. 

Restricting public access to the personal data of the minor. 

Limiting features that increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by the minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, notifications, and other features that result in compulsive usage of the covered platform by the minor. 

Controlling personalized recommendation systems for the minor, and giving them the option to either opt out of the system entirely or to limit the types of content shown through the PRS. 

Restricting the sharing of GPS data of the minor sufficient for geolocation. 

As well as the options for the minor: 

Delete the account of the minor, as well as any data or content associated with the account, effectively removing any trace of the account’s existence from the platform, and the internet at large. 

Limit the amount of time spent on the platform. 

A covered platform shall also provide parents with the following tools: 

Requirements: 

The ability to manage a minor’s privacy and account settings, including the safeguards and options established under subsection (a), in a manner that allows parents to: 

View the privacy and account settings of the minor. 

In the case of a user that the platform knows is a child, change and control the privacy and account settings of the account of the minor. 

Restrict purchases and financial transactions by the minor, where applicable. 

View metrics of total time spent on the platform and restrict time spent on the covered platform by the minor. 

The bill also states that any minor(s) affected by the aforementioned systems should be given clear, prompt, and easily understood and accessible notice of if the systems have been applied, in what capacity they are applied in, and how they are applied.  

Default Tools: 

A covered platform shall provide the following tools and systems to both minor and parent(s) of that minor, and have them be enabled by default: 

A reporting mechanism, which is readily available and easily accessible and useable, to report any incidents or crimes involving the minor(s), as well as confirmation that such a report is received, and the means to track it. 

To respond to the report in a timely and appropriate manner, within a reasonable timeframe. 

An understanding and appreciation of the fact that a reasonable timeframe is: 

(A) 10 days (about 1 and a half weeks) after the receipt of a report, if, for the most recent calendar year, the platform averaged more than 10,000,000 active users monthly in the United States. 

(B) 21 days (about 3 weeks) after the receipt of a report, if, for the most recent calendar year, the platform averaged less than 10,000,000 active users monthly in the United States. 

(C) notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), if the report involves an imminent threat to the safety of a minor, as promptly as needed to address the reported threat to safety. 

Accessibility : 

With respect to the aforementioned safeguards, a covered platform shall provide: 

Information and control options in a clear and conspicuous manner that takes into consideration the differing ages, capacities, and developmental needs of the minors most likely to access the covered platform and does not encourage minors or parents to weaken or disable safeguards or parental controls. 

Readily accessible and easy-to-use controls to enable or disable safeguards or parental controls, as appropriate. 

Information and control options in the same language, form, and manner as the covered platform provides the product or service used by minors and their parents. 

The bill also states that no part of the previous statements should be construed to prohibit or prevent a covered platform from blocking, banning, filtering, flagging, or deleting content inappropriate for minors from their platform, or to prevent general management of spam, as well as security risks. It also states that regarding PRSs, it shall be illegal for a covered platform to alter or distort any analytics or data gathered from their platform with the purpose of limiting user autonomy. Also included in this section is that no part of KOSA shall be construed to require the disclosure of a minor’s personal data, including search history, contacts, messages, and location. Also stated is that a PRS for a minor is allowed under the condition that it only uses data publicly available, such as the language the minor speaks, or the minor’s age, and that covered platforms are allowed to integrate third-party systems into their platform, if they meet the requirements laid out in the bill. 

And now our train arrives at Section 5, “Disclosure”. This section includes rules regarding the disclosure of policies, rules, and terms to a user that is a minor or is reasonably believed to be a minor prior to their registration with a covered platform. 

Registration or Purchase: 

Prior to registration or purchase of a covered platform, the platform must provide clear and easily understood information on the policies of the platform, its rules, regulations, etc. As well as any PRS used by the platform, and information on how to turn it and the parental controls on and off. 

Notification: 

Notice and Acknowledgement, Reasonable Effort, and Consolidated Notices: 

In the case of an individual that a covered platform knows is a child, the platform shall additionally provide information about the parental tools and safeguards required under section 4 to a parent of the child and obtain verifiable parental consent (as defined in section 1302(9) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 6501(9))) from the parent prior to the initial use of the covered platform by the child. 

A covered platform shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement described in subparagraph (A) if the covered platform is in compliance with the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) to use reasonable efforts (taking into consideration available technology) to provide a parent with the information and to obtain verifiable parental consent as required. 

A covered platform may consolidate the process for providing information under this subsection and obtaining verifiable parental consent or the consent of the minor involved (as applicable) as required under this subsection with its obligations to provide relevant notice and obtain verifiable parental consent under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.). 

Guidance: the FTC may assist covered platforms with compliance with the rules and regulations in this section. 

A covered platform that operates a personalized recommendation system shall set out in its terms and conditions, in a clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand manner: 

An overview of how such personalized recommendation system is used by the covered platform to provide information to users of the platform who are minors, including how such systems use the personal data of minors; and 

Information about options for minors or their parents to opt out of or control the personalized recommendation system (as applicable). 

Advertising and Marketing Information and Labels: 

A covered platform that facilitates advertising aimed at users that the platform knows are minors shall provide clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand information and labels to minors on advertisements regarding: 

The name of the product, service, or brand and the subject matter of an advertisement; 

If the covered platform engages in individual-specific advertising to minors, why a particular advertisement is directed to a specific minor, including material information about how the minor's personal data is used to direct the advertisement to the minor; and 

Whether media displayed to the minor is an advertisement or marketing material, including disclosure of endorsements of products, services, or brands made for commercial consideration by other users of the platform. 

Resources for Parents and Minors: 

A covered platform shall provide to minors and parents clear, conspicuous, easy-to-understand, and comprehensive information in a prominent location regarding: 

Its policies and practices with respect to personal data and safeguards for minors. 

How to access the safeguards and tools required under section four. 

Resources in Additional Languages: 

A covered platform shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that the disclosures required by this section are made available in the same language, form, and manner as the covered platform provides any product or service used by minors and their parents. 

That concludes Section 5, and now our next stop is Section 6: “Transparency”. This section includes protocols for public transparency for covered platforms, including public reports on the status of potential harm to minors on their platforms.  

Scope of Application: the requirements of this section shall apply to a covered platform if: 

For the most recent calendar year, the platform averaged more than 10,000,000 active users monthly in the United States. 

The platform predominantly provides a community forum for user-generated content and discussion, including sharing videos, images, games, audio files, discussion in a virtual setting, or other content, such as acting as a social media platform, virtual reality environment, or a social network service. 

Transparency: The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include: 

An assessment of the extent to which the platform is likely to be accessed by minors; 

A description of the commercial interests of the covered platform in use by minors; 

An accounting, based on the data held by the covered platform, of: 

The number of individuals using the covered platform reasonably believed to be minors in the United States; 

The median and mean amounts of time spent on the platform by minors in the United States who have accessed the platform during the reporting year on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis; and 

The amount of content being accessed by individuals that the platform knows to be minors that is in English, and the top 5 non-English languages used by individuals accessing the platform in the United States; 

An accounting of total reports received regarding, and the prevalence (which can be based on scientifically valid sampling methods using the content available to the covered platform in the normal course of business) of content related to, the harms described in section 3, disaggregated by category of harm and language, including English and the top five non-English languages used by individuals accessing the platform from the United States. 

A description of any material breaches of parental tools or assurances regarding minors, representations regarding the use of the personal data of minors, and other matters regarding non-compliance. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Risk of Harm to Minors: the public reports required of covered platforms under this section shall include: 

An assessment of the reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to minors posed by the covered platform, including identifying any other physical, mental, developmental, or financial harms. 

An assessment of how personalized recommendation systems and individual-specific advertising to minors can contribute to harm to minors. 

A description of whether and how the covered platform uses system design features that increase, sustain, or extend use of a product or service by a minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent, and notifications. 

A description of whether, how, and for what purpose the platform collects or processes categories of personal data that may cause reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to minors. 

An evaluation of the efficacy of safeguards for minors under section 4, and any issues in delivering such safeguards and the associated parental tools. 

An evaluation of any other relevant matters of public concern over risk of harm to minors. 

 An assessment of differences in risk of harm to minors across different English and non-English languages and efficacy of safeguards in those languages. 

Mitigation: The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include, for English and the top 5 non-English languages used by individuals accessing the platform from the United States: 

A description of the safeguards and parental tools available to minors and parents on the covered platform. 

A description of interventions by the covered platform when it had or has reason to believe that harms to minors could occur. 

A description of the prevention and mitigation measures intended to be taken in response to the known and emerging risks identified in its assessment of system risks, including steps taken to: 

Prevent harm to minors, including adapting or removing system design features or addressing through parental controls. 

Provide the most protective level of control over privacy and safety by default. 

Adapt recommendation systems to mitigate reasonably foreseeable risk of harms to minors. 

A description of internal processes for handling reports and automated detection mechanisms for harms to minors, including the rate, timeliness, and effectiveness of responses. 

The status of implementing prevention and mitigation measures identified in prior assessments. 

A description of the additional measures to be taken by the covered platform to address the circumvention of safeguards for minors and parental tools. 

Reasonable Inspection: when conducting an inspection on the systemic risk of harm to minors on their platforms under this section, a covered platform shall: 

Consider the function any PRS on their platform. 

Consult relevant parties with authority on topics relevant to the inspection. 

Conduct their research based on experiences of minors using the platform that the study is being conducted on, including reports and information provided by law enforcement. 

Take account of outside research, but not outside data for the study itself. 

Consider any implied, indicated, inferred, or known information on the age of users. 

Consider the presence of both English and non-English speaking users on their platform. 

Cooperation With Independent, Third Pary Audit: To facilitate the report required by this section, a covered platform shall: 

Provide directly or otherwise make accessible to the third party conducting the audit all: 

Information and data that the platform has the access and authority to disclose that are relevant to the audit. 

Platforms, systems and assets that the platform has the access and authority to disclose that are relevant to the audio. 

Facts relevant to the audit, unaltered and correctly and fully represented. 

Privacy Safeguards: In this subsection, the term “de-identified” means data that does not identify and is not linked or reasonably linkable to a device that is linked or reasonably linkable to an individual, regardless of whether the information is aggregated. In issuing the public reports required under this section, a covered platform shall take steps to safeguard the privacy of its users, including ensuring that data is presented in a de-identified, aggregated format such that it is reasonably impossible for the data to be linked back to any individual user. A covered platform must also present or publish the information on a publicly available and accessible webpage. 

And now the next stop on our tour is Section 7: Independent Research on Social Media and Minors. This section details the interactions between the FTC and the National Academy of Sciences in the months following the passing of this bill, if and when it passes. It states that the FTC is to seek to enter a contract with the Academy, in which the Academy is to conduct no less that 5 separate independent scientific studies on the risk of harms to minors on social media, addressing: 

Anxiety, depression, eating and suicidal disorders. 

Substance use (drugs, narcotics, alcohol, etc.) and gambling. 

Sexual exploitation and abuse. 

Addiction like behaviors leading to compulsive usage. 

Additional Study: after at least 4 years since the passing of the bill, the FTC and the Academy shall enter another contract, in which the Academy shall conduct another study on the above topics, to provide more up to data information.  

Content of Reports: The comprehensive studies and reports conducted pursuant to this section shall seek to evaluate impacts and advance understanding, knowledge, and remedies regarding the harms to minors posed by social media and other online platforms and may include recommendations related to public policy. 

Active Studies: If the Academy is already engaged in any extant studies regarding the topics described above, it may base the studies required of this section off said study, if it is otherwise compliant. 

Collaboration: In conducting the studies required under this section, the FTC, National Academy of Sciences, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consult with the Surgeon General and the Kids Online Safety Council (KOSC). 

Access to Data: The FTC may issue orders to covered platforms to gather and compile data and information needed for the studies required under this section, as well as issue orders under section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46(b)) to no more than 5 covered platforms per study under this section. Pursuant to subsections (b) and (f) of section 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46), the FTC shall also enter in agreements with the National Academy to share appropriate information received from a covered platform pursuant to an order under such subsection (b) for a comprehensive study under this section in a confidential and secure manner, and to prohibit the disclosure or sharing of such information by the National Academy. 

Next is a short Section 8: Market Research.  

Market Research by Covered Platforms: The FTC, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, shall issue guidance for covered platforms seeking to conduct market- and product-focused research on minors. Such guidance shall include: 

A standard consent form that provides minors and their parents a clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand explanation of the scope and purpose of the research to be conducted, and provides an opportunity for informed consent in the language in which the parent uses the covered platform; and 

Recommendations for research practices for studies that may include minors, disaggregated by the age ranges of 0-5, 6-9, 10-12, and 13-16. 

The FTC shall issue such guidance no later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this Act. In doing so, they shall seek input from members of the public and the representatives of the KOSC established under section 12.  

As we pull off interstate 8 we come into Section 9: Age Verification Study and Report. This is where the writers evidently started pounding shots of tequila at their desks, as some of the regulations in this section are completely asinine. Here we are told about a mandatory age verification system. Gone will be the days of being born in 1427 as a kid, now our age will be known to any covered platform. Is that what you want? 

Study: The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in coordination with the FCC, FTC, and the SoC, shall conduct a study evaluating the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level. 

Such study shall consider: 

The benefits of creating a device or operating system level age verification system. 

What information may need to be collected to create this type of age verification system. 

The accuracy of such systems and their impact or steps to improve accessibility, including for individuals with disabilities. 

How such a system or systems could verify age while mitigating risks to user privacy and data security and safeguarding minors' personal data, emphasizing minimizing the amount of data collected and processed by covered platforms and age verification providers for such a system. 

The technical feasibility, including the need for potential hardware and software changes, including for devices currently in commerce and owned by consumers. 

The impact of different age verification systems on competition, particularly the risk of different age verification systems creating barriers to entry for small companies. 

Report: No later than 1 year after the passing of KOSA, the agencies described in subsection (a) shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under such subsection to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives. 

Section 10: Guidance. 

No later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this Act, the FTC, in consultation with the KOSC established under section 12, shall issue guidance to: 

Provide information and examples for covered platforms and auditors regarding the following, with consideration given to differences across English and non-English languages: 

Identifying features used to increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by a minor (compulsive usage). 

Safeguarding minors against the possible misuse of parental tools. 

Best practices in providing minors and parents the most protective level of control over privacy and safety. 

Using indicia or inferences of age of users for assessing use of the covered platform by minors. 

Methods for evaluating the efficacy of safeguards; and 

Providing additional control options that allow parents to address the harms described in section 3. 

Outline conduct that does not have the purpose or substantial effect of subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice, or of causing, increasing, or encouraging compulsive usage for a minor, such as: 

Minute user interface changes derived from testing consumer preferences, including different styles, layouts, or text, where such changes are not done with the purpose of weakening or disabling safeguards or parental controls, such as the following, are exceptions to this: 

Algorithms or data outputs outside the control of a covered platform. 

The establishing of default settings that provide enhanced privacy protection to users or otherwise enhance their autonomy and decision-making ability. 

Guidance to Schools: No later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this act, the SoE, in consultation with the FTC and the KOSC established under section 12, shall issue guidance to assist to assist elementary and secondary schools in using the notice, safeguards and tools provided under this Act and providing information on online safety for students and teachers. 

Guidance on Knowledge Standards: No later than 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the date of enactment of this act, the FTC shall issue guidance to provide information, including best practices and examples, for covered platforms to understand the Commission’s determination of whether a covered platform “had knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances” for purposes of this act. 

Limitation on FTC Guidance: No guidance issued by the FTC with respect to this act shall: 

Confer any rights on any person, State, or locality; or 

Operate to bind the FTC or any person to the approach recommended in such guidance. 

Enforcement Actions: In any enforcement action made to a covered platform in violation of this act, the FTC: 

Shall allege a violation of this act. 

May not base such enforcement action on, or execute a consent order based on, practices that are alleged to be inconsistent with guidance issued by the FTC with respect to this aact, unless the practices are alleged to violate a provision of this act. 

And now we’re almost on the home stretch, with Section 11, otherwise known as Enforcement. This section outlines, you guessed it, the enforcement of this act. 

Enforcement by the FTC: 

Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices: A violation of this act shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 

Powers of the Commission: The FTC shall enforce this act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this act. 

Privileges and Immunities: Any person that violates this act shall be subject to the penalties, and entitled to the privileges and immunities, provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 

Authority Preserved: Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the authority of the FTC under any other provision of law. 

Enforcement by State Attorney General: 

Civil Actions: In any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a practice that violates this act, the State, as parens patrie (de facto parent of any citizens unable to defend themselves) , may bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district court of the United States or a State court of appropriate jurisdiction to: 

Enjoin that practice. 

Enforce compliance with this act. 

On behalf of residents of the State, obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation, each of which shall be distributed in accordance with State law. 

Obtain such other relief as the court may consider to be appropriate. 

Notice: Before filing an action, the attorney general of the State involved shall provide to the Commission: 

Written notice of that action. 

A copy of the complaint for that action. 

Exemption: Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of a State under this paragraph if the attorney general of the State determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice described in that clause before the filing of the action. 

Notification: In an action described in subclause (I), the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a copy of the complaint to the Commission at the same time as the attorney general files the action. 

Intervention: On receiving notice, the Commission shall have the right to intervene in the action that is the notice's subject. 

Effect of Intervention: If the Commission intervenes in an action under paragraph (1), it shall have the right: 

To be heard with respect to any matter that arises in that action. 

To file a petition for appeal. 

Construction: For purposes of bringing any civil action under paragraph (1), nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of that State to: 

Conduct investigations; 

Administer oaths or affirmations. 

Compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and other evidence. 

Actions by the Commission: In any case in which an action is instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for violation of this act, no State may, during the pendency of that action, institute a separate action under paragraph (1) against any defendant named in the complaint in the action instituted by or on behalf of the Commission for that violation. 

Venue; Service of Progress: 

Venue: Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be brought in either: 

The district court of the United States that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code. 

A State court of competent authority. 

Service of Progress: In an action brought under paragraph (1) in a district court of the United States, process may be served wherever the defendant: 

Is an inhabitant. 

May be found. 

And now we are going to hear about the Kids Online Safety Council we’ve been hearing so much about in the last few sections in Section 12: Kids Online Safety Council. 

Establishment: No later than 180 days (about 6 months) after the enactment date of this act, the Secretary of Commerce shall establish and convene the Kids Online Safety Council to provide advice on matters related to this act. 

The Kids Online Safety Council shall include diverse participation from: 

Academic experts, health professionals, and members of civil society with expertise in mental health, substance use disorders, and the prevention of harm to minors. 

Representatives in academia and civil society with specific expertise in privacy and civil liberties. 

Parents and youth representation. 

Representatives of covered platforms. 

Representatives of the NTIA, the NIST, the FTC, the DoJ, and the DHHS. 

(6) State attorneys general or their designees acting in State or local government. 

Educators. 

Representatives of communities of socially disadvantaged individuals (as defined in section 8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637)). 

Activities: The matters to be addressed by the Kids Online Safety Council shall include: 

Identifying emerging or current risks of harm to minors associated with online platforms. 

Recommending measures and methods for assessing, preventing, and mitigating harms to minors online. 

Recommending methods and themes for conducting research regarding online harms to minors, including in English and non-English languages. 

Recommending best practices and clear, consensus-based technical standards for transparency reports and audits, as required under this a ct, including methods, criteria, and scope to promote overall accountability. 

And now for Section 13, Filter Bubble Transparency Requirements. Almost to the end! 

Definitions: In this section: 

The term “algorithmic ranking system” means a computational process, including one derived from algorithmic decision-making, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, used to determine the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of content from a set of information that is provided to a user on a covered internet platform, including the ranking of search results, the provision of content recommendations, the display of social media posts, or any other method of automated content selection. 

The term “approximate geolocation information” means information that identifies the location of an individual, but with a precision of less than 5 miles. 

The term “Commission” means the Federal Trade Commission. 

The term “connected device” means an electronic device that: 

Can connect to the internet, either directly or indirectly through a network, to communicate information in the direction of an individual. 

Has computer processing capabilities for collecting, sending, receiving, or analyzing data. 

Is primarily designed for or marketed to consumers. 

Covered Internet Platform: The term “covered internet platform” means any public-facing website, internet application, or mobile application, including a social network site, video sharing service, search engine, or content aggregation service. Such term shall not include a platform that: 

Is wholly owned, controlled, and operated by a person that: 

For the most recent 6-month period, did not employ more than 500 employees. 

For the most recent 3-year period, averaged less than $50,000,000 in annual gross revenue. 

Collects or processes on an annual basis the user-specific data of less than 1,000,000 users (about the population of Delaware) or is operated for the sole purpose of conducting research that is not made for profit either directly or indirectly. 

Input Transparent Algorithm: The term “input-transparent algorithm” means an algorithmic ranking system that does not use the user-specific data of a user to determine the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of information that is furnished to such user on a covered internet platform, unless the user-specific data is expressly provided to the platform by the user for such purpose. 

Data Provided for Express Purpose of Interaction with Platform For purposes of subparagraph (A), user-specific data that is provided by a user for the express purpose of determining the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of information that is furnished to such user on a covered internet platform: 

Shall include user-supplied search terms, filters, speech patterns (if provided for the purpose of enabling the platform to accept spoken input or selecting the language in which the user interacts with the platform), saved preferences, and the current precise geolocation information that is supplied by the user. 

Shall include the user's current approximate geolocation information. 

Shall include data affirmatively supplied to the platform by the user that expresses the user's desire to receive particular information, such as the social media profiles the user follows, the video channels the user subscribes to, or other content or sources of content on the platform the user has selected. 

Shall NOT include the history of the user's connected device, including the user's history of web searches and browsing, previous geographical locations, physical activity, device interaction, and financial transactions. 

Shall NOT include inferences about the user or the user's connected device, without regard to whether such inferences are based on data described in clause (i) or (iii). 

Opaque Algorithm: The term “opaque algorithm” means an algorithmic ranking system that determines the selection, order, relative prioritization, or relative prominence of information that is furnished to such user on a covered internet platform based, in whole or part, on user-specific data that was not expressly provided by the user to the platform for such purpose. 

Exception for Age-Appropriate Content Filtering: Such term shall not include an algorithmic ranking system used by a covered internet platform if: 

The only user-specific data (including inferences about the user) that the system uses is information relating to the age of the user. 

Such information is only used to restrict a user's access to content on the basis that the individual is not old enough to access such content (i.e., not allowing a 13-year-old to access pornography). 

Precise Geolocation Information: The term “precise geolocation information” means geolocation information that identifies an individual’s location to within a range of 5 miles or less. 

Search Syndication Contract, Upstream Provider, Downstream Provider: 

The term “search syndication contract” means a contract or subcontract for the sale of, license of, or other right to access an index of web pages or search results on the internet for the purpose of operating an internet search engine. 

The term “upstream provider” means, with respect to a search syndication contract, the person that grants access to an index of web pages or search results on the internet to a downstream provider pursuant to the contract. 

The term “downstream provider” means, with respect to a search syndication contract, the person that receives access to an index of web pages on the internet from an upstream provider under such contract. 

User Specific Data: The term “user-specific data” means information relating to an individual or a specific connected device that would not necessarily be true of every individual or device. 

Requirement to Allow Users to View Unaltered Content on Internet Platforms: Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be illegal: 

For any person to operate a covered internet platform that uses an opaque algorithm unless the person complies with the opaque algorithm requirements. 

For any upstream provider to grant access to an index of web pages on the internet under a search syndication contract that does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (3). 

Opaque Algorithm Requirements: The requirements of this paragraph with respect to a person that operates a covered internet platform that uses an opaque algorithm are the following: 

The person provides notice to users of the platform: 

That the platform uses an opaque algorithm that uses user-specific data to select the content the user sees. Such notice shall be presented in a clear, conspicuous manner on the platform whenever the user interacts with an opaque algorithm for the first time and may be a one-time notice that can be dismissed by the user. 

In the terms and conditions of the covered internet platform, in a clear, accessible, and easily comprehensible manner to be updated no less frequently than once every 6 months: 

The most salient features, inputs, and parameters used by the algorithm. 

How any user-specific data used by the algorithm is collected or inferred about a user of the platform, and the categories of such data. 

Any options that the covered internet platform makes available for a user of the platform to opt out or exercise options under clause (ii), modify the profile of the user or to influence the features, inputs, or parameters used by the algorithm. 

Any quantities, such as time spent using a product or specific measures of engagement or social interaction, that the algorithm is designed to optimize, as well as a general description of the relative importance of each quantity for such ranking. 

The person makes available a version of the platform that uses an input-transparent algorithm and enables users to easily switch between the version of the platform that uses an opaque algorithm and the version of the platform that uses the input-transparent algorithm. 

Exceptions for Certain Downstream Providers: Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to an internet search engine if: 

The search engine is operated by a downstream provider with fewer than 1,000 employees. 

The search engine uses an index of web pages on the internet to which such provider received access under a search syndication contract. 

Search Syndication Contract Requirements: The requirements of this paragraph with respect to a search syndication contract are that: 

As part of the contract, the upstream provider makes available to the downstream provider the same input-transparent algorithm used by the upstream provider for purposes of complying with paragraph (2)(A)(ii). 

The upstream provider does not impose any additional costs, degraded quality, reduced speed, or other constraint on the functioning of such algorithm when used by the downstream provider to operate an internet search engine relative to the performance of such algorithm when used by the upstream provider to operate an internet search engine. 

Prohibition on Differential Pricing: A covered internet platform shall not deny, charge different prices or rates for, or condition the provision of a service or product to an individual based on the individual’s election to use a version of the platform that uses an input-transparent algorithm as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(ii). 

Enforcement by FTC: 

Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices: A violation of this section by an operator of a covered internet platform shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). 

Powers of Commision: Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the FTC shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. 

Privileges and Immunities: Except as provided in subparagraph (C), any person who violates this Act shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.). 

Common Carriers and Nonprofit Institutions: Notwithstanding section 4, 5(a)(2), or 6 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44, 45(a)(2), 46) or any jurisdictional limitation of the Commission, the Commission shall also enforce this act, in the same manner provided in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph, with respect to: 

Common carriers subject to the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto 

Organizations are not organized to carry on business for their own profit or that of their members. 

Authority Preserved: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law. 

Rule of Application: Section 11 shall not apply to this section. 

Rule of Construction to Preserve Personal Blocks: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or prohibit a covered internet platform’s ability to, at the direction of an individual user or group of users, restrict another user from searching for, finding, accessing, or interacting with such user’s or group’s account, content, data, or online community. 

Skipping over Section 14, as it is incredibly short (don’t worry, it’s one line, and I’ll say it at the end), we arrive at Section 15, or “Rules of Construction and Other Matters”. 

Relationships to Other Laws: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to: 

Preempt section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g (about 2.72 lb), commonly known as the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974”) or other Federal or State laws governing student privacy. 

Preempt the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) or any rule or regulation promulgated under such Act. 

Authorize any action that would conflict with section 18(h) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(h)). 

Fairly Implied on the Basis of Objective Circumstances: For purposes of enforcing this act, in making a determination as to whether covered platform has knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that a user is a minor, the FTC shall rely on competent and reliable empirical evidence, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of whether the operator, using available technology, exercised reasonable care. 

Protections for Privacy: Nothing in this act shall be construed to require: 

The affirmative collection of any personal data with respect to the age of users that a covered platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business. 

A covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality. 

Compliance: Nothing in this act shall be construed to restrict a covered platform's ability to: 

Cooperate with law enforcement agencies regarding activity that the covered platform reasonably and in good faith believes may violate Federal, State, or local laws, rules, or regulations. 

Comply with a civil, criminal, or regulatory inquiry or any investigation, subpoena, or summons by Federal, State, local, or other government authorities. 

Investigate, establish, exercise, respond to, or defend against legal claims. 

Application to Video Streaming Services: A video streaming service shall be deemed to be in compliance with this act if it predominantly consists of news, sports, entertainment, or other video programming content that is preselected by the provider and not user-generated, and: 

Any chat, comment, or interactive functionality is provided incidental to, directly related to, or dependent on provision of such content. 

If such video streaming service requires account owner registration and is not predominantly news or sports, the service includes the capability: 

To limit a minor’s access to the service, which may utilize a system of age-rating. 

To limit the automatic playing of on-demand content selected by a personalized recommendation system for an individual that the service knows is a minor. 

To provide an individual that the service knows is a minor with readily-accessible and easy-to-use options to delete an account held by the minor and delete any personal data collected from the minor on the service, or, in the case of a service that allows a parent to create a profile for a minor, to allow a parent to delete the minor’s profile, and to delete any personal data collected from the minor on the service. 

For a parent to manage a minor’s privacy and account settings, and restrict purchases and financial transactions by a minor, where applicable. 

To provide an electronic point of contact specific to matters described in this paragraph. 

To offer clear, conspicuous, and easy-to-understand notice of its policies and practices with respect to personal data and the capabilities described in this paragraph. 

When providing on-demand content, to employ measures that safeguard against serving advertising for narcotic drugs (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), tobacco products, gambling, or alcohol directly to the account or profile of an individual that the service knows is a minor. 

And finally, we arrive at Section 16, the last Section, combined with Section 14, which I glossed over earlier. If any part of this act is deemed obsolete, ineffective, or unnecessary at any point in time, it may be removed from the act without any effect to the rest of it. Unless otherwise specified, all regulations in this act shall come into effect 18 months (about 1 and a half years) after the passing of this bill. 

As you can see, this bill makes an impressive amount of sense, and if it were simply used as intended, it would be wonderful. However, because we can never have nice things, legislators, politicians, and the common public have twisted this bill, warping it to serve their selfish desires. Firstly, Senator Blackburn, one of the people behind this whole thing, blatantly said to a camera that she was going to “use KOSA to protect kids from the transgender in this culture.” With the queer community already under fire from all sides, this is the last thing they need, as all it does is further demonize them, and paint them as evil, pedophilic freaks to be feared and hated. A lot of regulations outlined in this bill also provide a concerning amount of control over the children it claims to protect, and it isn’t giving it to the child. It’s giving it to their parents. The adults who, as much as we hate to admit it, don’t always have the best interests of their children at heart. And what’s more, now the conservative Republicans care about people with disabilities, but it’s only when they’re trying to push a different marginalized group off the net. However, as soon as we try to do something as simple as mandating wheelchair ramps for all government buildings, they say “we don’t have the money for that!”. Okay, since obviously you don’t understand basic common sense Mr. Conservative, let me explain this for you: let’s say that KOSA will be fully enforced on every single website out of the over 1 BILLION that currently exist. Let’s say that about half of those comply fully willingly with KOSA, just for the benefit of the doubt. That still lives 500 million noncompliant websites. Let’s say that with legal proceedings and other costs, it would cost 500 dollars in USD per website to bring those websites into compliance. It would cost 250 BILLION dollars in USD to bring 500 million websites into compliance. Now let’s do some math on the wheelchair ramp problem, I’ll use small businesses as an example, since that’s the main subject of complaints on this topic. There are 33,185,550 small businesses registered in the United States. With the average cost per linear foot of concrete ramp being 225 dollars in USD, and saying that every small business has 2 doors that need ramps that are 1 linear foot, that means that every small business would have to pay 450 dollars in USD to make their businesses accessible. Every 3-5 years, you’ll want to reseal that concrete, costing about 3-5 dollars in USD per square foot. That means that a one time expense of 450 dollars to build the original ramps (on average, grossly oversimplified, but you get it), with an recurring cost every 3-5 years of a mere 6-10 dollars in USD. It would cost 4e-9% of what it would cost to enforce KOSA to make every registered small business in the US accessible. That is less than 1% of the money it would cost to enforce KOSA. 

This bill would also enforce a strict “no horny” policy on damn near every website that you can think of. And as much as we like to demonize and vilify them, sex workers, porn actors, and hentai artists are people too, and some of them make a living off what they do. By enacting KOSA, you are driving the lives of more than 2 million people (about the population of Nebraska) into the dirt. KOSA places the value of a child’s innocence over those lives. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am absolutely against child pornography and exposing small children to porn, but we shouldn’t lock down everyone's access to explicit content to preserve 22.1% of the US population’s childlike innocence. KOSA also can lock those children into abusive and dangerous conditions and make the lives of orphans a living hell. By giving the parents of minors total control over their child’s account, you are allowing them to lock down their lives, and expose these children to, at best, harmful misinformation, extremism, and general naivety, and at worst, physical abuse and/or death. That’s another 600,000 lives ground into the dirt under the boot of “safety”. And that little bit about “parens patrie”? That basically means that if you can’t defend yourself (i.e. are homeless, an orphan, etc.), the government is your parent now. Growing up with a faceless, nameless entity in place of any parental figure is NOT a healthy way for a child to live. Again, that’s another 2,823,104 human beings crushed by KOSA. In total, out of just the three categories of people I listed here, over 4,883,104 human beings, with lives, emotions, thoughts, joys and pains, are being royally screwed over by this absolutely horrid bill. 

 We as a society are better than this. Come on people. What memo did I miss that decided that we only need equality for some people? Instead of bickering amongst ourselves like children, we should work together and solve our problems! Isn’t that what we all want!? But no, instead we fight over our inviolable rights as human beings like toddlers over a shovel in the sandbox, instead of behaving like civilized people. And what’s worse, it paints anyone who doesn’t fit the perfect ideal of an American citizen in shades of evil, demonizing and alienating them even more than they already are. What the hell are we doing here? Instead of waving our bureaucracy around, we should get off the chair and do something about it. How many times have we done something without taking a risk? That’s right, NEVER. 

If we claim to be champions of equality, yet only desire it for ourselves, we are just as bad as those whose actions we decry. So please, dear reader, I beg of you. Stop KOSA, stop censorship, stop tyranny if you value this world at all. 

[olderthannetfic]

Having a crisis over my friends casually repeating anti talking points— like the anti-"smut in YA" arguments generally reminiscent of Alice Oseman's statements on the matter, as well as more serious things like believing anyone who ships or wrote (insert taboo topic - in several talking cases it was pedophilia) is a suspicious and untrustworthy person. And everyone around them seemed to just casually agree?? They're not hardcore antis or anything but they clearly believe this is just normal. (Bonus points for the guy who started unironically arguing that pedophiles - real life ones as opposed to people who ship age gap ships - are subhuman and deserve the death penalty. I had an aneurysm giving him a talk about human rights.)

People... when I said I used ao3, I didn't just mean I wrote funny things on there. I have read horrors beyond my comprehension and there are doubtless more of them awaiting my reading list. No amount of moralising disgust will have me agree with you that certain topics don't deserve to be written or read by certain demographics (but the children! - I can't believe they're also parroting right-wing talking points as a group of self-proclaimed progressives). I don't remember where I saw it, but I did manage to change one mind by quoting that post that said a librarian is not responsible for curating who borrows what book, such as not stopping a child from borrowing A Song of Ice and Fire.

I'm just in disbelief at the various debates I've had like this among real people. Half of them aren't even what you would call "internet-savvy", and I highly doubt they've been online in ways that makes them terminally online. It seems to have just leaked into the general consciousness in very concerning ways.

--

It leaks into the mainstream from fundies, not fandom.

[thatgirlonstage]

I am seeing a bad and annoying take about all books for adults being boring circulating again so here is my plea to 1) remember that adult fiction written by people other than Ernest Hemingway and F Scott Fitzgerald exists, 2) remember that genre fiction exists and is in fact frequently written for adults, and 3) realize it is counterproductive to the goal of encouraging people to read things they enjoy to throw a different set of books under the bus

Anyway whenever people have book takes that make me mad I’ve decided the healthy response is for me to just make a rec list so here’s some books for adults that I don’t think are boring at all.

Superluminal by Vonda McIntyre. I’m going to keep banging this drum forever. Sci-fi future setting with space travel and a lot of themes of body transformation and there’s magic whales and an overwhelming love for the beauty of the universe as it stretches beyond our comprehension.

The Perilous Courts series by Tavia Lark (first book: Prince and Assassin). Six M/M romance novels set in a high fantasy world. Do you like dragons? Magic? Themes of family and loyalty and betrayal and devotion? Just enough fantasy politics to ratchet up the stakes without bogging you down in the nitty gritty? Want some sweet sweet smut scenes as the cherry on top? Check out these books they’re fucking great.

The Lost Children Archive by Valeria Luiselli. A family takes a road trip across the US, the father researching the Apache tribe, the mother looking into the disappearance of her friend’s two immigrant children who have gone missing in federal custody. I will not lie, this book is heavy, but it is also beautifully written and a really gutting exploration of the parallels and connections between historic and current struggles for survival and the atrocities that struggle is often met with.

We Could Be So Good by Cat Sebastian. 1950s M/M romance. Quieter and slower-paced than the other things on this list but if that’s your jam, this book is incredibly gentle. And I can’t speak for anyone else but my bisexual ass felt INCREDIBLY seen.

The Green Bone Saga by Fonda Lee (first book: Jade City). What if The Godfather was a wuxia novel.

The Gilda Stories by Jewelle Gomez. A young girl escapes slavery and is rescued by vampires. The book is composed of a series of vignettes of her life as a vampire over the centuries. It’s a really different take on vampire lore than any other book or show I know about and I really can’t recommend it enough especially if you like deconstructions of classic monsters.

[literallymechanical]

What should I read next?

Tumblr help I keep not knowing what to read next. Here is a complete and comprehensive list of the qualities I'm looking for:

It should be a good book

The plot, characters, and setting should be good too

The writing should also be good

Here are a few books that I have found to be good in the past couple of years, roughly in reverse chronological order:

Children of Time and Dogs of War by Adrian Tchaikovsky (high-concept speculative biology scifi)

Exordia and the Baru Cormorant series by Seth Dickinson (Obama-era foreign policy scifi and colonial british empire fantasy, respectively)

Murderbot by Martha Wells (zippy space opera action novellas)

The Zoe Ashe series by Jason Pargin (splashy near-future scifi comedy satire)

The Terra Ignota series by Ada Palmer (scifi taxi voltaire with god's favorite unreliable narrator)

The Craft Sequence by Max Gladstone (necromancy + courtroom drama + science fantasy horror)

Empress of Forever, also by Max Gladstone (Gender-Swapped Journey To The West, In Space)

This Is How You Lose The Time War, by Max Gladstone and Amal El-Mohtar

I just really like Max Gladstone okay

The Locked Tomb by Tamsyn Muir (we all know this one)

A Memory Called Empire by Arkadiy Martine (science fiction political thriller written by a scholar of Byzantine history)

I'm willing to branch out of my extremely obvious genre preferences, though I've been reading a lot of horror novels lately and might want something less horrifying.

[grace-williams-xo]

ALRIGHT. I had time to kill waiting for an appointment so I have dug through countless pages on the Julia Quinn wiki, the Bridgerton wiki and used a ss from Julia’s fb to compile the most comprehensive list of as many characters as possibles birthdays and middle names. No point in keeping it to myself let’s go.

Canon (probably) Bridgerton biographical info:

Middle names

This is the birth name of everyone I could find a middle name for. Scratching at the walls for Julia Quinn to tell us the children’s middle names (though I have headcanons)

Violet Elizabeth Ledger

Simon Arthur Henry Fitzranulph Basset

Katharine Grace Sheffield (Kathani Sharma’s middle name isn’t confirmed anywhere)

Sophia Maria Beckett

Penelope Anne Featherington

Michael Stuart Stirling

Lucy Margaret Catherine Abernathy

Gareth William St. Clair

Birthdates

This is very messy because some idk, some vary between show and book and some are inconsistent everywhere (Colin I’m looking at you)

This is the fb post in question. (Julia Quinn how dare you tell us you have all their birthday’s written down and not tell us 😭)

Edmund: 1764–1803 (was 38 at death, meaning his birthday was later in the year than May ish when he died) [EDIT: his tombstone in the show says he died in May]

Violet: 11th April 1766 (Aries)

Anthony: 17th September, 1784

Benedict: July/August, 1786

Colin: 2nd March, 1791 (books) 1792 or 1793 or 1794 (tv) [okay, so, both wiki sites say show Colin’s born 1792 or 1793 and it has broken my brain because he is canonically one year older than Daphne and in a copy of the pilot script I found online Daphne is listed as 18 (which fits with her debut) and him 19 but for him to be 19 in the social season he would’ve had to have just turned 19 (bc start of March birthday) and that would make him also born in 1994 but it is clearly not possible for Violet to birth two children in six months furthermore in s2 Benedict outright says that Colin is 21 which would have made him 20 in s1 and thus born 1792; so Colin was born in 1793 or 1792 or maybe even 1794 or inside a fucking void idk anymore but show Colin’s birthday probably isn’t March]

Daphne: August/September, 1792 (books) 1794 or 1795 (tv) [I think 1794 because she is listed as being 18 in a copy of the pilot script I found online, and she is debuting, so she would’ve been 18 turning 19 born in 1794]

Eloise: April (before 22nd) 1796

Francesca: April (before 22nd) 1797

Gregory: January/February (I think February), 1801

Hyacinth: May/June, 1803 [EDIT: Edmund’s tombstone in the show says he died in May, making Hyacinth’s birthday likely in June imo but I actually have no basis for that guess other than vibes]

Kate: 1793 (books) 1788 (tv)

Sophie: 1794

Penelope: 8th April 1796 (Aries)

Simon: 1784

Phillip: 1794

John: 1792

Michael: 1791

Lucy: 1807

Gareth: March 1797

If you made it this far, good job! If you have any info to add, please do so in the replies/reblogs.

[autistic-duck]

(Very long post, sorry.)

I had an experience with a college professor last semester that really got me thinking about academics and ableism, specifically in college writing.

A few months ago, my class was having an open discussion, and I brought up an opinion that had been on my mind for a while.

I basically said, "There's a gap between college-level writing and the average person's reading level that we need to fill. Nobody should need to look up words every three seconds to understand a study that could affect their life, so we either need more people to rewrite these studies for the general public to understand, or these studies, in general, should be published with language that isn't so complicated."

My professor responded by saying something like, "Sure, that's a good goal. However, wouldn't a better goal be to raise the average person's reading level so that everyone can understand college-level writing?"

I (in my frantic and confused way) tried to bring up the fact that there are people born at a disadvantage in life. In fact, getting everyone to a perfect college reading level isn't a realistic goal. It certainly isn't for me, and I don't want it to have to be for other people. In fact, the professor who told me this also struggled to understand the chapters we were assigned to read in that class.

Really, it all comes down to this: college-level language is inaccessible.

Even more importantly, many people will never be able to understand most of the huge words thrown around in college writing.

At school, I am constantly told my writing style is "simple" and "easy to understand." This is something my classmates have told me isn't "bad" but just "different." However, I'm still insecure whenever someone mentions it because it is always pointed out. I use a smaller vocabulary, they seem to say, but don't worry. It's just a preferred writing style, they reassure me. They think the simple language is a choice I could stop at any time.

Well, what if it isn't just a "style"? What if I struggle to expand my vocabulary? Learning one new word takes me ages because I need to see it in all kinds of contexts. Even then, oftentimes "context clues" are no help, and I completely misinterpret the meaning of a word for years because it seems like every other native English speaker knew what it meant without needing to say it. A lot of the time I'll read the definition of a new word and instantly forget it after finishing the sentence it was in.

So yeah, I'll say it with pride: Simple words are powerful. Simple words are beautiful. And most importantly, simple words are not inferior in any way to words like "quintessential" or "expedient." (I have no idea what either of those words mean even though I've looked them up plenty of times and used them accurately in essays before.)

Simplicity is why I like shows meant for all ages better than shows meant only for adults. Because in shows that are written with children in mind, there aren't confusing messages you have to spend energy untangling. There aren't unnecessary analogies or feelings that are "implied" but never said. The characters' facial expressions and emotions are easy to read and the moments where I am confused are rare.

Now, this is all coming from an autistic person with low support needs. My reading comprehension score is considered slightly above average, and so is my problem-solving abilities which means I am lucky and I can understand a lot of what I read in college. The main point of this little "essay" was to point out a common conversation I despise hearing in college, the one about simple language and its implied inferiority.

Because guess what? Language is not accessible to everybody. Many of us, even those with high reading comprehension, struggle.

Our goal should never be to make everyone capable of reading college-level books and studies. That is asking for those who need accommodations to accommodate themselves, something I'm sure other disabled people are tired of having to do. Instead, the goal should be making college language more accessible, making knowledge accessible. After all, the reader is only a fragment of the conversation. The writer is the majority of it.

TLDR; Everyone deserves access to language and knowledge that makes sense, and bigger words never mean they are better.