336
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 214 points 1 year ago

The party of small government sure does a lot of mommying.

[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago

I remember being VERY pissed about Obamacare requiring an individual having insurance by paying a for-profit company, else pay a penalty, because of the pro-corp "nanny state" implications, much like I despise legally-required auto insurance (without a government-funded baseline).

Yet here we are with "muh indivdulizm" republicans making the overreach far worse than Democrats ever would have.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 53 points 1 year ago

Obamacare was invented by a Republican. It was done as a compromise because most Democrat legislators are right wing and don't want to see public healthcare enacted in the US.

[-] ElegantBiscuit@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

This. In retrospect it's kind of amazing it even got passed, and that is the best we can do with democrats controlling 60% of the house and 58 senate seats. And unless republicans are somehow tricked into voting for national popular vote legislation and federally enforced fair districting, or we wait 25 years for all the boomers to die out and hope that millennials still want UHC, AND we also repeal citizens united, the ACA is probably the best we are going to get for some time.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This. I was too young for Obamacare to be something I knew a single thing about but as a car owner and leftist auto insurance has always rubbed me wrong.

It's just another means to keep people from being hireable by denying them jobs due to shitty public transit and the inability to legally drive their cars.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

The parts of auto insurance meant to help you are optional. It's only the part that will help others in the event you cause damage or injury to them that is mandatory, which people who can't afford to drive because of insurance certainly wouldn't be able to afford.

Now change it to a system where there aren't executives and shareholders looking to extract a lot of money from that necessity and I'm all for it. But I'm vehemently against just removing the requirement entirely.

IMO if you can afford it, it's dumb to opt out of the optional ones, too, even with the profit going to the insurance execs and owners. Unless you have enough savings to easily replace your vehicle in the event you crash it or a tree falls on it that isn't covered by someone's homeowner's insurance.

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 7 points 1 year ago

Lol. So, you've never gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver then? Because you wouldn't be saying that if you had.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I have gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver. Twice. Both their fault (running reds out near Mulholland).

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No it's a safeguard against someone destroying your fucking car and not having the means to pay for it.

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

If they can barely afford the insurance and hit you their insurance isn't paying.

I've been hit by red light runners thrice and while biking in a parking lot (ironically got more injured here) and only two times the drivers didn't have insurance..... not a single one paid out.

Insurance is a scam and defending it is akin to defending a Ponzi scheme imo.

[-] slumberlust@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Are you suggesting state run insurance or no requirement for insurance?

[-] Imotali@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

I think there should be no requirement or a govt funded baseline

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The government funded baselines for insurance is the high risk pool, or just not driving.

I know right!? The party of personal responsibility 🤮

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s not inconsistent. They want to watch you j/o and only a small government can fit in your bedroom.

[-] PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Can we stop associating power overreach with female authority figures, please?

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's reasonable.

this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
336 points (94.2% liked)

Technology

59648 readers
1478 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS