Meteorite Boy
LightNews LightNews
me-te-or-ite.bsky.social
Meteorite Boy
@me-te-or-ite.bsky.social
4 followers 14 following 0 posts
21+ | he/they
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Meteorite Boy
azeldraws.bsky.social
Washington- they’re trying the internet age restriction stuff here. Do you want to give up *your* privacy because someone else can’t properly parent *their* children? Comment, call, don’t let it pass!
amras.me Amras, A Werewolf Story θ∆ @amras.me · 20d
Do you live in Washington State?

I need you to do two things:

1) Go here (app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?...) & read HB 2112.
2) Go here (app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill/2112) & leave a comment urging your representatives to vote AGAINST the bill.

This is SERIOUS shit. Please!

My comment in the BLUE images.
I write to you today to STRONGLY OPPOSE House Bill 2112 (2026) and urge you to vote against this measure in your assembly. While I appreciate the impetus behind the Bill, it will not accomplish its goals and will only serve to criminalize speech which is protected by the United States Constitution. Firstly, and foremost, it is the responsibility of parents to police the actions of their children, to prevent them from accessing objectionable content online, and protect them from harm. This is a PARENTING PROBLEM and nearly every internet enabled hardware device comes with built-in content controls ("Parental Controls") designed to accomplish this level of content filtering and control. The legislature should not be imposing regulation on private individuals—the adults legally accessing the "objectionable content" defined in HB2112—to address a parenting problem. Encourage parents to be more involved and engaged in their children's lives, to employ the tools available to them, and to restrict access to devices and internet access inappropriate for their children. Secondly, imposing compliance with age verification software on all Internet sites that display images defined within the Bill is a fundamental invasion of privacy. While Section 2.2 states that identifying information may not be retained, that simply isn't practical and, if audited by the State, presents logistical challenges for said verifiers. The verification process would also create a "paper trail" through computer log data with which the State could potentially link verification queries with individuals and sites, building profiles on individuals, which is inappropriate and grotesque! Thirdly, Section 1.7(c) of the Bill is ambiguous and subjective, without exception for amateur expression. Who is to say what works of art, by which artists, is of merit? Who will be the arbiter of "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"? This is not a sufficient definition of acceptability. It's dangerous, McCarthy-esque language.  Look, I'm sure you're getting a lot of these messages right now, and I appreciate that your staff is busy and possibly overwhelmed with work. This is a bad bill that will not accomplish its objectives of making the internet safer for children. The reality is that the internet is not a safe place for children to spend time unsupervised and without content restrictions. Parents need to use the tools available to them—on their children's devices, laptops, home wifi routers, etc.—to make the content restrictions necessary to protect their children as they see fit. It is not the place of the Legislature to impose mass content restriction on everyone "for the children" when the solution is far simpler and already exists. I sincerely urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you for your service to your communities and the State of Washington.
January 23, 2026 at 1:49 AM