Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Travis Bickle]

Trump is back on Twitter..

The greatest Twitter user to ever live will probably stick to Truth Social for the time being just to prove a point.

[hector13]

Twitter looks to be dying anyway.

Possibly being beaten to death.

[MrRoboto75]

to shreads, you say...

[Max™]

The world cup is absolutely going to destroy it, the site barely makes it through each year apparently, had all the staff with the experience necessary been in place with bosses who desperately wanted them to succeed it would have been rough.

Now?

Fuck, anybody got some popcorn?

[hector13]

Especially this World Cup. It’s been controversial since it was awarded in ‘08 and has been getting steadily worse since.

Yesterday FIFA announced they won’t be selling alcohol in the stadiums (they will in corporate sections) which is 2 days before the competition starts, and today the head of FIFA had a bizarre press conference essentially saying that European countries don’t have any right to tell off Qatar for having shitty human rights and mistreating migrant workers because they’ve been bad for 3,000 years.

That’s before you even get to the football!

[Duuvian]

So I've read there is a lame duck omnibus being worked on of some sort. There is at least one bad (according to the source) internet related bill that might be attached to it with the standard misleading and flowery bill name. There seems to potentially be more than one; techdirt (which I only found recently, thanks Shonus for the link) has seperate articles on others linked in the recent articles, but some are old and I'm not sure what exactly is on the table now or the level of support for each. Some are quite industry driven it appears and one sounded downright authoritarian and the article implied an expansion of mass surveillance,.and another ignores the 4th amendment in a way that would benefit criminals if that still applies in courts for those defendants and methods were not concealed from the courts (my take is that they would likely have private concerns perform the search as agents while avoiding naming them as such for legal reasons related to agency caselaw that require much more stringent rules for agents of the government conducting a search under the 4th). The articles described some bills as partly or mostly good with very, very big flaws and at least one as basically being written to benefit certain industries at the expense of online marketplaces by being far too broad and difficult to comply with to not cripple smaller marketplaces.

Anyone keeping an eye on these things here that has more information?

Here are some links of the more recent of the articles I peruse(I didn't post links to all the articles including info in the first paragraph, these are the most recent two):

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/18/for-the-umpteenth-time-the-inform-act-is-still-unconstitutional-and-has-no-business-being-attached-to-any-bill-congress-needs-to-pass/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/17/bad-news-for-the-internet-congress-looking-to-sneak-in-dangerous-save-the-kids-internet-bill-into-year-end-omnibus/

There were a few more links in the above stories I followed around too, to see what else is cooking, but those were older links and I don't know if they are attached somehow to these or still in progress as different legislation. One when combined with the odd spam campaign being conducted with unusual (to be generous) video titles but still legal content on (rule abiding) porn streaming sites seemed like it may be partially aimed at those sites and industry, especially if it's algorithmically based takedowns/repurcussions now that those keyword conditions have been set. That's just conjecture on my part though. If it got rid of that spam that aspect would be a good thing imo but I fear overreach in the goal of increased societal control. I won't give a link to that article unless it's still looking likely to be included as it touches on much more uncomfortable subjects than even the adult industry, so you'd have to lookon your own for now. The adult industry is already under a lot of pressure and it would not surprise me if this was a continuation of it. I don't participate in this industry or pay for it's products but I think adults who want to should be able to if they prefer and are not coerced or driven by desperation to participate.

Here is a different source from the corporate lobby perspective on the INFORM act:
https://www.technet.org/informact/learnmore/

Here is one on the other bill. It has a Good, Bad, and Ugly breakdown I'll post in the following spoiler to show how it may be a bad bill in portions, despite the noble intentions. Here is the link first.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/11/kosa-would-let-government-control-what-young-people-see-online

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The Good

KOSA is a sweeping update to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as COPPA. COPPA is the reason that many websites and platforms ask for you to confirm your age, and why many services require their users to be older than 13—because the laws protecting data privacy are much stricter for children than they are for adults. Legislators have been hoping to expand COPPA for years, and there have been good proposals to do so. KOSA, for its part, includes some good ideas: more people should be protected by privacy laws, and the bill expands COPPA’s protections to include minors under 16. That would do a world of good, in theory: the more people we can protect under COPPA, the better. But why stop with protecting the privacy of minors under 16? EFF has long supported comprehensive data privacy legislation for all users.

Another good provision in KOSA would compel sites to allow minor users to delete their account and their personal data, and restrict the sharing of their geolocation data, as well as provide notice if they are tracking it. Again, EFF thinks all users—regardless of their age—should have these protections, and expanding them incrementally is better than the status quo.
The Bad

But KOSA’s chief focus is not to protect young people’s privacy. The bill’s main aim is to censor a broad swath of speech in response to concerns that young people are spending too much time on social media, and too often encountering harmful content. KOSA requires sites to “prevent and mitigate mental health disorders,” including by the promotion or exacerbation of “self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, and substance use disorders.” Make no mistake: this is a requirement that platforms censor content.

This sweeping set of content restrictions wouldn’t just apply to Facebook or Instagram. Platforms covered by KOSA include “any online platform that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.” As we said before, this would likely encompass everything from Apple’s iMessage and Signal to web browsers, email applications and VPN software, as well as platforms like  Reddit, Facebook, and TikTok—platforms with wildly different user bases and uses, and with hugely varying abilities, and expectations, to monitor content.

A huge number of online services would thus be forced to make a choice: overfilter to ensure no one encounters content that could be construed as ambiguously harmful, or raise the age limit for users to 17. Many platforms may even do both.

Let’s be clear about the dangerous consequences of KOSA’s censorship. Under its vague standard, both adults and children will not be able to access medical and health information online. This is because it will be next to impossible for a website to make case-by-case decisions about which content promotes self-harm or other disorders and which ones provide necessary health information and advice to those suffering from them. This will disparately impact children who lack the familial, social, financial, or other means to obtain health information elsewhere. (Research has shown that a large majority of young people have used the internet for health-related research.)

Another example: KOSA also requires these services to ensure that young people do not see content that exacerbates a substance use disorder. On the face of it, that might seem fairly simple: just delete content that talks about drugs, or hide it from young people. But how do you find and label such content? Put simply: not all content that talks about drugs exacerbates their use.

There is no realistic way to find and filter only that content without also removing a huge swath of content that is beneficial. For just one example, social media posts describing how to use naloxone, a medication that can reverse an overdose from opioids, could be viewed as either promoting self-harm, because it can reduce the potential danger of a fatal overdose, or as providing necessary health information. But KOSA’s vague standard means that a website owner is in a better position legally if they remove that information, which avoids a potential claim later that the information is harmful. That will reduce the availability of important and potentially life-saving information online. KOSA pushes website owners toward government-approved censorship.   
The Ugly

To ensure that users are the correct age, KOSA compels vast data collection efforts that perversely result in even greater potential privacy invasions.

KOSA would authorize a federal study on creating a device or operating system level age verification system, “including the need for potential hardware and software changes.” The end result would likely be an elaborate age-verification system, run by a third-party, that maintains an enormous database of all internet users’ data.

Many of the risks of such a program are obvious. They require every user—including children—to hand private data over to a third-party simply to use a website if that user ever wants to see beyond the government’s “parental” controls.

Moreover, the bill lets Congress decide what’s appropriate for children to view online. This verification scheme would make it much harder for actual parents to make individual choices for their own children. Because it’s so hard to differentiate between minors having discussions about many of these topics in a way that encourages them, as opposed to a way that discourages them, the safest course of action for services under this bill is to block all discussion and viewing of these topics by younger children and teenagers. If KOSA passes, instead of allowing parents to make the decision about what young people will see online, Congress will do it for them.

A recent study on attitudes toward age verification showed that most parents “are willing to make an exception or allow their child to bypass the age requirement altogether, but then require direct oversight of the account or discussions about how to use the app safely.” Many also fudge the numbers a bit, to ensure that websites don’t have the specific birthdays of their children. With the hard-wired, national age verification system imagined by KOSA, it will be much harder, if not impossible, for parents to decide for themselves what sites and content a young person can encounter. Instead, the algorithm will do it for them.

KOSA also fails to recognize the reality that some parents do not always have their childrens’ best interest in mind, or are unable to make appropriate decisions for them. Those children suffer under KOSA’s paternal regime, which requires services to set parental controls to their highest levels for those under thirteen.

EDIT: to add links, didn't make it in time before next post sorry. Also I apologize about the uncomfortable topics, but I was somewhat involved in internet freedoms (within reason) activism back in the day and I may feel the urge to strap those dusty shoes back on if these are as flawed and overreaching as I have read. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am incorrect.

[Robsoie]

today the head of FIFA had a bizarre press conference essentially saying that European countries don’t have any right to tell off Qatar for having shitty human rights and mistreating migrant workers because they’ve been bad for 3,000 years.

I listened to some part of that conference and it was one of the most ridiculous attempt of a corrupt guy to suck it up to his "hey take that money" beloved masters.
What he said was so incredibly absurd, moronic and idiotic i wonder how he can look himself in a mirror without laughing at how much of a piece of crap he has been there.
But in the same time he's only the average corrupt fifa head guy, like so many before him and i guess so many after him, you couldn't expect anything other than this  kind of garbage coming from such guy mouth.

[LuuBluum]

Shakes off bones; emerges from coffin.

Let's walk through both bills. That is, the actual text, and not whatever bullshit has been distilled through word-of-mouth because none of the people posting about this stuff online bother to actually read anything other than other people's takes.

First, KOSA. Let's look at the "big scary thing" that the EFF rants about:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

SEC. 3. DUTY OF CARE.
(a) Best Interests.—A covered platform has a duty to act in the best interests of a minor that uses the platform's products or services.

(b) Prevention Of Harm To Minors.—In acting in the best interests of minors, a covered platform has a duty to prevent and mitigate the heightened risks of physical, emotional, developmental, or material harms to minors posed by materials on, or engagement with, the platform, including—

(1) promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, and other matters that pose a risk to physical and mental health of a minor;

(2) patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors;

(3) physical harm, online bullying, and harassment of a minor;

(4) sexual exploitation, including enticement, grooming, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse of minors and trafficking of online child sexual abuse material;

(5) promotion and marketing of products or services that are unlawful for minors, such as illegal drugs, tobacco, gambling, or alcohol; and

(6) predatory, unfair, or deceptive marketing practices.

(I'm not going to bother formatting this stuff nicely; you can just read the actual bill)

Notably, this is the third section, after the title and definitions. This is not an actual list of things that all websites are now suddenly legally forced to uphold. This is the goal of the bill, not some dictation. "Has a duty" is not legally enforceable. What is actually being requested here?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS FOR MINORS.
(a) Safeguards For Minors.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A covered platform shall provide a minor, or a parent acting on a minor's behalf, with readily accessible and easy-to-use safeguards to control their experience and personal data on the covered platform, including settings to—

(A) limit the ability of other individuals to contact or find a minor, in particular adults with no relationship to the minor;

(B) prevent other individuals from viewing the minor’s personal data collected by or shared on the covered platform, in particular restricting public access to personal data;

(C) limit features that increase, sustain, or extend use of the covered platform by a minor, such as automatic playing of media, rewards for time spent on the platform, and notifications;

(D) opt out of algorithmic recommendation systems that use a minor’s personal data;

(E) delete the minor's account and request removal of personal data;

(F) restrict the sharing of the geolocation of a minor and to provide notice regarding the tracking of a minor’s geolocation; and

(G) limit time spent by a minor on the covered platform.

(2) DEFAULT SAFEGUARD SETTINGS FOR MINORS.—A covered platform shall provide that, in the case of a user that the platform knows or reasonably believes to be a minor, the default setting for any safeguard described under paragraph (1) shall be the strongest option available.

(3) ACCESSIBILITY FOR MINORS.—With respect to safeguards described under paragraph (1), a covered platform shall provide information and control options in a manner that is age appropriate and does not encourage minors to weaken or turn off safeguards.

(b) Parental Tools.—

(1) PARENTAL TOOLS.—A covered platform shall provide readily accessible and easy-to-use parental tools for parents to appropriately supervise the use of the covered platform by a minor.

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The parental tools provided by a covered platform shall include—

(A) the ability to control privacy and account settings, including the safeguards established under subsection (a)(1);

(B) the ability to restrict purchases and financial transactions by a minor;

(C) the ability to track total time spent on the platform;

(D) a clear and conspicuous mechanism for parents to opt out of or turn off any default parental tools put in place by the covered platform; and

(E) access to other information regarding a minor's use of a covered platform and control options necessary to a parent's ability to address the harms described in section 3(b).

(3) NOTICE TO MINORS.—A covered platform shall provide clear and conspicuous notice to a minor when parental tools are in effect.

(4) DEFAULT PARENTAL TOOLS.—A covered platform shall provide that, in the case of a user that the platform knows or reasonably believes to be a minor, parental tools shall be enabled by default.

(c) Reporting Mechanism.—

(1) PARENTAL REPORTS.—A covered platform shall provide minors and parents with—

(A) a readily accessible and easy-to-use means to submit reports of harms to a minor, including harms described in section 3(b);

(B) an electronic point of contact specific to matters involving harms to a minor; and

(C) confirmation of the receipt of such a report and a means to track a submitted report.

(2) TIMING.—A covered platform shall establish an internal process to receive and respond to reports in a reasonable and timely manner.

(d) Illegal Content.—A covered platform shall not facilitate the advertising of products or services to minors that are illegal to sell to minors based on applicable State or Federal law.

Everything listed in 4.a.1. is already either an option or could be made an option without concern. The rest of 4.a. just covers the fact that this should be the default if it's reasonable to presume that the user is a minor, which is generally covered by asking their age. Nothing particularly special there; websites do this already. Everything in 4.b. just requires attaching a minor's account to an account of a parent who has control; nothing special there, either.

Then there's 4.c, which is the enforcement mechanism of section 3. Which entirely constitutes... giving parents a mechanism to report all of the stuff in section 3 to the website runner. This already exists; it's called a report button.

4.d. bars advertising age-restricted things to minors which isn't exactly something to write home about.

Section 5 is just matters of disclosure and telling users all the various information. Nothing special.

Then there's section 6:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

SEC. 6. TRANSPARENCY.
(a) Audit Of Systemic Risks To Minors.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not less frequently than once a year, a covered platform shall issue a public report identifying the foreseeable risks of harm to minors based on an independent, third-party audit conducted through reasonable inspection of the covered platform and describe the prevention and mitigation measures taken to address such risks.

(2) CONTENT.—

(A) TRANSPARENCY.—The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include—

(i) an assessment of whether the covered platform is reasonably likely to be accessed by minors;

(ii) a description of the commercial interests of the covered platform in use by minors;

(iii) an accounting of the number of individuals using the covered platform reasonably believed to be minors in the United States, disaggregated by the age ranges of 0–5, 6–9, 10–12, and 13–16;

(iv) an accounting of the time spent by the median and average minor in the United States on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, disaggregated by the age ranges of 0–5, 6–9, 10–12, and 13–16;

(v) an accounting, disaggregated by category of harm, of—

(I) the total number of reports of the dissemination of illegal or harmful content involving minors; and

(II) the prevalence of content that is illegal or harmful to minors; and

(vi) a description of any material breaches of parental tools or assurances regarding minors, unexpected use of the personal data of minors, and other matters regarding non-compliance.

(B) SYSTEMIC RISKS ASSESSMENT.—The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include—

(i) an audit of the known and emerging risks to minors posed by the covered platform, including the harms described in section 3(b);

(ii) an assessment of how algorithmic recommendation systems and targeted advertising systems can contribute to harms to minors;

(iii) a description of whether and how the covered platform uses system design features to 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;

(iv) a description of whether, how, and for what purpose the platform collects or processes geolocation, contact information, health data, or other categories of personal data of heightened concern regarding minors, as determined by the Commission;

(v) an evaluation of the efficacy and any issues in delivering safeguards to minors under section 4; and

(vi) an evaluation of any other relevant matters of public concern over risks to minors.

(C) MITIGATION.—The public reports required of a covered platform under this section shall include—

(i) a description of the safeguards and parental tools available to minors and parents on the covered platform;

(ii) a description of interventions by the covered platform when it had or has reason to believe that harm could occur to minors;

(iii) a description of the prevention and mitigation measures intended to be taken in response to the known and emerging risks identified in its audit of system risks, including steps taken to—

(I) adapt or remove system design features that expose minors to risks;

(II) set safeguards to their most safe settings by default;

(III) prevent the presence of illegal and illicit content on the covered platform; and

(IV) adapt algorithmic recommendation system to prioritize the best interests of users who are minors;

(iv) a description of internal processes for handling reports and automated detection mechanisms for harms to minors, including the rate, timeliness, and effectiveness of responses under the requirement of section 4(c);

(v) the status of implementing prevention and mitigation measures identified in prior assessments; and

(vi) a description of the additional measures to be taken by the covered platform to address the circumvention of safeguards and parental tools.

(3) REASONABLE INSPECTION.—In conducting an inspection of the systemic risks of harm to minors, a covered platform shall—

(A) take into consideration the function of algorithmic recommendation systems;

(B) consult parents, experts, and civil society with respect to the prevention of harms to minors;

(C) conduct research based on experiences of minors that use the covered platform, including harms reported under section 4(c);

(D) take account of research, including research regarding system design features, marketing, or product integrity, industry best practices, or outside research; and

(E) consider indicia or inferences of age of users, in addition to any self-declared information about the age of individuals.

(4) PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS.—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-anonymized, aggregated format.

Please explain to me how any of the things listed here are the "doomsday mechanisms for the Internet" that the EFF is screaming bloody murder about. "Please report the number of minors on your platform once a year." Ooh, real scary. This is literally "please bring in a third party to report on your moderation activities regarding minors" and that's not exactly a significant thing.

Section 7 then outlines all of the requirements of who is eligible to be one of these "third-party researchers". Section 8 is just a guideline for how to approach doing market research on minors.

Section 9, the infamous "age verification study":

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

SEC. 9. AGE VERIFICATION STUDY AND REPORT.
(a) Study.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and the Secretary of Commerce, shall conduct a study evaluating the most technologically feasible options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.

(b) Contents.—Such study shall consider—

(1) the benefits of creating a device or operating system level age verification system;

(2) what information may need to be collected to create this type of age verification system;

(3) the accuracy of such systems and their impact or steps to improve accessibility, including for individuals with disabilities;

(4) how such a system or systems could verify age while mitigating risks to user privacy and data security and safeguarding minors' personal data; and

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

(c) Report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 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.

Note the lack of any sort of developing this mechanism; just evaluating what such a mechanism would even be, and whether it's feasible. EFF naturally jumps to the conclusion that they'll mandate such a hypothetical system, but of course, that's not in the bill. That's just the EFF tilting at legislation-shaped windmills, and every other tech reporter taking their word as gospel.

The rest is just boilerplate enforcement (it's civil, so we're talking lawsuits) and implementation (making a council to figure out how the hell to do it).

The only thing I see coming of KOSA, assuming it even does end up added, is that more websites are going to ask your age when you make an account.
That's about it.
Now, onto INFORM.

I'm not gonna bother breaking out into snippets what's in the text because it's rather straightforward. If selling something through an online marketplace as a third-party in "high volume" ("a third party seller... who, in any continuous 12-month period during the previous 24 months, has entered into 200 or more discrete sales or transactions of new or unused consumer products resulting in the accumulation of an aggregate total of $5,000 or more in gross revenues."), you're obliged to provide your name and contact information. Notably, if you lack a business address to provide, then the only requirement is country (and if applicable, state) or the online platform simply saying that there is no business address available.

Notably, none of this applies if you're just selling this stuff through your own storefront. Only if you're trying to sell your "politically provocative" book on Amazon, sans publisher.
No, I will not reply to anything else here. I linked the text of the bills; those are going to be more authoritative than anything else.

[Loud Whispers]

EDIT: to add links, didn't make it in time before next post sorry. Also I apologize about the uncomfortable topics, but I was somewhat involved in internet freedoms (within reason) activism back in the day and I may feel the urge to strap those dusty shoes back on if these are as flawed and overreaching as I have read. I'd be happy to be corrected if I am incorrect.

Nah it's always good to hear another take from you Duuvian. It is primarily in the name of protecting the innocence of children that the government does tend to destroy the innocence of children, ultimately to decide what the future generations are allowed to think and speak on. Reminds me of when kids were getting reported for terrorism for searching up terms like Caliphate at school, even if they were just into history or played CKii

[nenjin]

Criminalizing knowledge is the only true evil

[Duuvian]

Please explain to me how any of the things listed here are the "doomsday mechanisms for the Internet" that the EFF is screaming bloody murder about. "Please report the number of minors on your platform once a year." Ooh, real scary. This is literally "please bring in a third party to report on your moderation activities regarding minors" and that's not exactly a significant thing.

I can't with what you've listed, because you listed the things that aren't what the links were complaining about; in fact it seems they were in agreement with you on most of that.

You mentioned enforcement provisions being in the wrong section; what you described was the objective of that section, not the enforcement.

In particular, 10.b.1.A

Spoiler: Enforcement by State attorneys general.— (click to show/hide)

(b) Enforcement by State attorneys general.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—

(A) 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 or a regulation promulgated under this Act, the State, as parens patriae, 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—

(i) enjoin that practice;

(ii) enforce compliance with this Act or such regulation;

(iii) on behalf of residents of the State, obtain damages, statutory damages, restitution, or other compensation, each of which shall be distributed in accordance with State law; or

(iv) obtain such other relief as the court may consider to be appropriate.

The standard of reason to believe is rather broad. I don't have enough jurist knowledge to know if that is the standard in all or most civil action, but being able to enjoin websites on belief seems like overreach to me at first glance. Injunctions are a high bar to have granted, but I don't know if the "reason to believe" standard would apply at that point (meaning would a "reason to believe" stated as in the AG's heart be enough to grant an injunction on it's own). At that point the imminent harm for an injunction would be much easier to argue as the government has an interest in protecting minors that overrides almost every other interest.

Here is a short description of the reason to believe standard:
https://1library.net/article/defining-standard-reason-believe-standard.z1588jpy

This enforcement section does only apply to what is in the bill, however, it will also extend to whatever regulation is further promulgated by the newly established advisory council once that is concluded. This could be nothing of course, as you say.

I actually would not be against the theory of age verifications built into things at the operating system, but only in the narrowly tailored application on hardware specifically manufactured for minors. This isn't a thing though; adults and minors commonly use the same device models so it may require a mandate of seperate product lines of minor's and adult's devices and that seems unlikely. I also think it's unlikely already that minors are supposed to be able to install an OS as I'm pretty sure there are contracts involved when you install one (at least Windows does IIRC). I'd even be ok with it being a checkbox of "are you or the intended user a minor" or some such on OS instllation and other covered things, as that is much more narrowly tailored than asking everyone who owns a device their specific age (this would be outstanding for unrelated data collection, such as for marketing purposes, but bad for users of the devices), and at that point I see no issue with clarifying the age range for minor users of the device after being established as such by the checkbox, if people far more knowledgable than I think it's a good idea.

Here though is my primary concern: that a broadly applicable bill due to the reason to believe standard could be politically applied, and as it's written broadly, be applied past the intent of the bill.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23314536/prelim-order.pdf
From the above link, which is text of a district court (a lower federal court so this will likely be appealed) of N. Florida preliminary injunction motion that was granted in part:
"It’s worth keeping in mind that the State
has chosen affirmative action as one of its eight concepts because the State has
deemed it to be repugnant and “noxious to the people of Florida.”

While this is comparing apples and oranges in particular due to being entirely different (one is a proposed bill and the other an injunction order and both on dissimilar subjects), it was easy for me to find without doing serious research (it was linked in another techdirt article) and rather than being comparable, instead reflects the general tone of politics.

[Loud Whispers]

Criminalizing knowledge is the only true evil

Don't worry, there are plenty of peoples with enough resources and clout to fight governments and alphabet corporations trying to monopolise or outlaw knowledge... Like... Elon...

_{Oh dear}

[Magmacube_tr]

Criminalizing knowledge is the only true evil

BASED

[scriver]

You're not allowed to know that

[Loud Whispers]

Freedom is cringe