Senate Commerce is eyeing July 29 for the big kids and AI markup, with things like KOSA included, not the kids act
âSenate Commerce is eyeing July 29 for the big kids and AI markup.
The date isnât finalized but the session is likely to include KOSA, Cruz priorities like his chatbots bill and potentially even measures on âcatastrophic risk.â
This is not talking about the kids act, which is a separate thing from this, but either way, calling your representatives to tell them to stop the kids act and Kosa are very important
NEW: Senate Commerce is eyeing July 29 for the big kids and AI markup. The date isnât finalized but the session is likely to include KOSA, C
call em
Updates
June 29, 2026: By a vote of 267-117, the House has passed H.R. 7757, the KIDS Act. The bill now moves to the Senate, though the Sen
In the fight against ID Verification laws, religion might be our biggest ally.
And I'm not saying this as a "trick the religious into supporting our cause" thing. This is a very real concern in many religions. If you're familiar with The Mark of the Beast, then you'll see why ID verification laws is the first step in implementing this into society, especially within a Christian Nationalist and Facist society.
As many people have already pointed out, ID verification can be linked to all of your personal data. Your medical records, your financial records, your education records, and what you post on social media, what you talk about with your friends through text messages or discord or some other messaging app, what is in your Google docs or your cloud storage.
We have flock cameras everywhere, ring doorbells can scan your face and know who you are, you can unlock your phone with your face, in some places you can pay with your face or your hand.
With the way things are heading in the world, especially in the US and the UK, we are already under a facist government that uses religion to trick people into thinking they are the good guys, and rewriting what it means to be a Christian to divide people into a "you're with us or against us" type mindset where you're paranoid that everyone is out to get you.
With ID verification, we are very quickly getting to a point where your face, your ID, all of your personal records, your digital footprint, your ability to pay, and your rights are so intertwined that they will be impossible to separate from each other.
Police can scan your face at a routine traffic stop, and suddenly you're being charged with more than running a red light because your posts on social media are critical of the president.
You go to the doctor for a checkup, and they don't even let you check in because you're on a "do not serve" list because of an anti-government meme you posted.
You go to pay for your groceries, and your payment is denied because you've shown support for Palestine, Iran, or whoever else is the current designated enemy of the country.
And if you go somewhere else for medical care or food, somewhere that lets you have it for a payment that doesn't require your face or ID, or even for free, they can track you everywhere you go and arrest you for purchase or possession of illegal goods or services.
This is not fear mongering, because this is what a facist government wants. And ID verification is making it so much more easier. This is, in all ways, what is described as the mark of the Beast. And it's being trickled in slowly so people will not fight it, dressed up as "think about the children."
If we can get enough people to realize this, especially people who are familiar with the Bible and the warning of the mark of the Beast, this may be our best bet in destroying ID verification and other similar laws.
The KIDS act (which contains KOSA) passed the US house, so I recommend calling your senators and telling them to vote in opposition. I don't think I need to stress the importance of being able to use the internet freely and without privacy barriers being breached.
There are many scripts online you can follow, many ways to tweak your message to fit your senator (ESPECIALLY if they are up for reelection this year). Whether it's a recording you reach or a real person, be straightforward, don't argue, just let your rep know that you are a constituent and you oppose the KIDS act, etc.
Here is where you can search for your senator... call, email, fax, bring them physical letters, show up in person to their offices if you are able.
Turtle Knight and Bunny Magician finally encounter the Gold Tooth Golem!
But it's literally holding up the cave ceiling from collapsing! What will the duo will do? A golem's gold tooth is worth a lot of money and they can get better gear.
Before Kelly's game released for the PlaySystem 2, the same devs played around with an old boomer shooter title. Weirdly, the main character of that game went on to be vendor character in their next titleâŠ
Some more Matilda art, along with some of the concept sketches that went into her design.
Hey, so you know how the autism community tends to have an issue with people with lower support needs being abelist towards people with higher support needs?
Yeah, we need to call out ASAN for this, unfortunately.
ASAN currently has campaigns that are trying to promote the idea that we should get rid of things like guardianship and GPS tracking bands, even for people who actually need them.
It's sad to see ASAN fumble this kind of thing, since they were meant to be the opposite of Autism Speaks. But while AS has issues with neurotypical people speaking over autistic people, ASAN has an issue with lower support needs people speaking over higher support needs people.
Introduction Freedom to make choices is a human right. Adults without disabilities often take their right to make choices for granted. Adu
While guardianship can certainly be a problem, the answer is not to get rid of guardianship entirely. It would be to change the laws to minimize the risk of abuse.
What ASAN aims to do is to end guardianship entirely and replace it with "supported decision-making agreements." Which not only would not solve the issue that ASAN is trying to solve, but actively make things WORSE for people who truly need guardianship.
ASAN claims that people will be able to just simply enter an agreement with their state government on whether or not they need assistance. This is purely wishful thinking. This ignores several issues facing how the government as a whole views and treats disabled people.
Your government could still put you under a Supported Decision-Making Agreement against your will by claiming you're not mentally fit enough disagree on your own terms.
Supported Decision-Making Agreements could be put under the same conditions and restrictions as government services such as disability benefits. You could be scrutinized and denied an agreement because you're deemed to be "not disabled enough."
You can still be persuaded or forced by your abuser to enter a Supported Decision-Making Agreement with them, and your abuser can still make you unable to terminate the agreement.
Someone who is non-verbal or has an intellectual disability that makes them unable to understand the process of initiating a Supported Decision-Making Agreement will be unable to get one, since many government processes require a verbal confirmation from the person for security reasons, and someone cannot set up a Supported Decision-Making Agreement on behalf of the person. This means a non-verbal person or an intellectually disabled person with high support needs will be unable to make important medical arrangements or legal decisions.
The above also is true for someone who is physically unable to sign their agreement contract or physically unable to leave their home or even their bed.
People who have, as ASAN puts it, "mental health disabilities, dementia, and other disabilities that change how they think" (paraphrasing) can refuse a Supported Decision-Making Agreement believing that they don't need one, even though they need to live with someone who can keep them grounded in reality, keep them from canceling perscriptions or doctors appointments they need, keep them from hurting themselves or others. If they end up in a mental health crisis, because they don't have a guardian, they could end up in a psychiatric facility against their will, in prison, or killed if someone calls the police on them.
As it stands ASAN has not addressed these issues with theirSupported Decision-Making Agreement plan and how they intend to make to accessible to non-verbal people and intellectually and physically disabled people with high support needs, or to prevent someone who is not of sound mind from denying the agreement they need.
This video also highlights how important it is for people who need guardianship to have guardianship, and the restrictions that not having a guardianship can cause, and what can happen to people who need a guardianship when they don't have one.
I urge you, especially with Disability Pride Month on the horizon, to email ASAN and call them out for not considering higher support needs people and speaking on their behalf.
Let ASAN know that what they are doing excludes those with higher support needs.
Please reblog and share this so more people can let ASAN know that this kind of thoughtless discrimination against those with higher support needs is unacceptable.
Hey, so you know how the autism community tends to have an issue with people with lower support needs being abelist towards people with higher support needs?
Yeah, we need to call out ASAN for this, unfortunately.
ASAN currently has campaigns that are trying to promote the idea that we should get rid of things like guardianship and GPS tracking bands, even for people who actually need them.
It's sad to see ASAN fumble this kind of thing, since they were meant to be the opposite of Autism Speaks. But while AS has issues with neurotypical people speaking over autistic people, ASAN has an issue with lower support needs people speaking over higher support needs people.
Introduction Freedom to make choices is a human right. Adults without disabilities often take their right to make choices for granted. Adu
While guardianship can certainly be a problem, the answer is not to get rid of guardianship entirely. It would be to change the laws to minimize the risk of abuse.
What ASAN aims to do is to end guardianship entirely and replace it with "supported decision-making agreements." Which not only would not solve the issue that ASAN is trying to solve, but actively make things WORSE for people who truly need guardianship.
ASAN claims that people will be able to just simply enter an agreement with their state government on whether or not they need assistance. This is purely wishful thinking. This ignores several issues facing how the government as a whole views and treats disabled people.
Your government could still put you under a Supported Decision-Making Agreement against your will by claiming you're not mentally fit enough disagree on your own terms.
Supported Decision-Making Agreements could be put under the same conditions and restrictions as government services such as disability benefits. You could be scrutinized and denied an agreement because you're deemed to be "not disabled enough."
You can still be persuaded or forced by your abuser to enter a Supported Decision-Making Agreement with them, and your abuser can still make you unable to terminate the agreement.
Someone who is non-verbal or has an intellectual disability that makes them unable to understand the process of initiating a Supported Decision-Making Agreement will be unable to get one, since many government processes require a verbal confirmation from the person for security reasons, and someone cannot set up a Supported Decision-Making Agreement on behalf of the person. This means a non-verbal person or an intellectually disabled person with high support needs will be unable to make important medical arrangements or legal decisions.
The above also is true for someone who is physically unable to sign their agreement contract or physically unable to leave their home or even their bed.
People who have, as ASAN puts it, "mental health disabilities, dementia, and other disabilities that change how they think" (paraphrasing) can refuse a Supported Decision-Making Agreement believing that they don't need one, even though they need to live with someone who can keep them grounded in reality, keep them from canceling perscriptions or doctors appointments they need, keep them from hurting themselves or others. If they end up in a mental health crisis, because they don't have a guardian, they could end up in a psychiatric facility against their will, in prison, or killed if someone calls the police on them.
As it stands ASAN has not addressed these issues with theirSupported Decision-Making Agreement plan and how they intend to make to accessible to non-verbal people and intellectually and physically disabled people with high support needs, or to prevent someone who is not of sound mind from denying the agreement they need.
This video also highlights how important it is for people who need guardianship to have guardianship, and the restrictions that not having a guardianship can cause, and what can happen to people who need a guardianship when they don't have one.
I urge you, especially with Disability Pride Month on the horizon, to email ASAN and call them out for not considering higher support needs people and speaking on their behalf.
Let ASAN know that what they are doing excludes those with higher support needs.
Spaghetti Zone Exclusive Review -
Yo! Noid vs The California Raisins
Here's a preview page of the upcoming 3rd issue of my video game and anime review zine, Spaghetti Zone, hopefully releasing sometime this year! This article is an exclusive preview for the totally real and not made up video game, Yo! Noid vs The California Raisins.
Video Games That Aren't Real @not-real-video-games - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
yousharknotpass
romaincrisis
origamiaround
stormborns
gummygunk
izzy806
