Restrict Act 2023

[RooftopKorean]

Anyone read up on this non sense? This is some truly tyrannical shit.

The RESTRICT Act would restrict a lot more than TikTok

The RESTRICT Act is so broad it's difficult to see where its authoritarian powers end.

reason.com

I don't really trust Tulsi Gabbard a whole lot, but she gave a good break down of what the Restrict Act is. It not only bans TikTok (which is a good thing), but the pork inside the proposed legislation is horrible. She quotes "Patriot Act 2.0 for the internet".

 

[SomeSoldier]

If the dems are for it. I am against it. No good can come from making a pact with the devil.

 

[Cavalry]

Its quite the broadly written pile. It pretty much kills the VPN among other things.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Its quite the broadly written pile. It pretty much kills the VPN among other things.

Gee, I wonder why they want to kill VPNs.

 

[kev74]

It's the Patriot act for the internet. No good.

 

[RooftopKorean]

Sorry, didn't see the previous thread, please merge.

 

[dwa12479]

It is infuriating that our government allows bills to be written thar are FILLED with provisions that are not related in any way to the title. They write a bill entitled "Protect the Puppies Act" and its 1,000 pages and includes $3 trillion in BS, but if you vote against it you are a puppy murderer. Its the stupidest thing ever. Yet here we are.

 

[libertysnake]

Gee, I wonder why they want to kill VPNs.

If they kill encryption and VPNs then all privacy is lost. That’s the last bastion. That’s the line. If they cross that line, it will be a problem. That is the limit I can say publicly.

 

[SomeSoldier]

If they kill encryption and VPNs then all privacy is lost. That’s the last bastion. That’s the line. If they cross that line, it will be a problem. That is the limit I can say publicly.

Sorry, I should have added more sarcasm.

 

[Defilade]

This and with a combo of CBDC's means...... Checkmate!

 

[JunkBoxFull]

Anyone read up on this non sense? This is some truly tyrannical shit.

The RESTRICT Act would restrict a lot more than TikTok

The RESTRICT Act is so broad it's difficult to see where its authoritarian powers end.

reason.com

I don't really trust Tulsi Gabbard a whole lot, but she gave a good break down of what the Restrict Act is. It not only bans TikTok (which is a good thing), but the pork inside the proposed legislation is horrible. She quotes "Patriot Act 2.0 for the internet".

NEVER EVER trust HER!

 

[tirwin1]

Hard no.

 

[FP1201]

Anyone read up on this non sense? This is some truly tyrannical shit.

The RESTRICT Act would restrict a lot more than TikTok

The RESTRICT Act is so broad it's difficult to see where its authoritarian powers end.

reason.com

I don't really trust Tulsi Gabbard a whole lot, but she gave a good break down of what the Restrict Act is. It not only bans TikTok (which is a good thing), but the pork inside the proposed legislation is horrible. She quotes "Patriot Act 2.0 for the internet".

Last fucking thing I want irrespective of how good they say it is, (even if it is) is the Government getting power to regulate and control the internet.

 

[Acer-m14]

"But the legislation doesn't stop there. The bill's reference to "digital economy" also raises eyebrows.

"Although the primary targets of this legislation are companies like Tik-Tok, the language of the bill could potentially be used to block or disrupt cryptocurrency transactions and, in extreme cases, block Americans' access to open source tools or protocols like Bitcoin," warns Coin Center."

i think he left out the CBDC in that statement LOL ..

 

[OwnTheRide]

I will reiterate my position that every legislator should be required to demonstrate that they have read and understand the entirety of a given bill prior to being allowed to vote on it. As we are told, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. Well, ignorance of the contents of a bill is no excuse for voting for it.

 

[Depick]

Seems like they copied and pasted a few pages out of China’s playbook.

 

[dwa12479]

I will reiterate my position that every legislator should be required to demonstrate that they have read and understand the entirety of a given bill prior to being allowed to vote on it. As we are told, ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. Well, ignorance of the contents of a bill is no excuse for voting for it.

That would certainly eliminate the current process of introducing a bill as thick as the phone book and saying the vote is in 20 minutes.