Prominent MAGA Supporter Is Worried New KOSA Won’t Suppress Enough LGBTQ Speech

from the thanks-for-reminding-everyone-the-true-purpose-of-kosa dept

By now you know that Senator Richard Blumenthal has released a new version of KOSA, the misleadingly named Kids Online Safety Act, that he pretends fixes all the problems. It doesn’t. It still represents a real threat to speech online, and in particular speech from LGBTQ users. This is why Blumenthal, a prominent Democrat, is putting out press releases including supportive quotes from infamous anti-LGBTQ groups like the Institute for Family Studies and the “American Principles Project” (one of the leading forces behind anti-trans bills across the US). Incredibly, it also has an approving quote from NCOSE, formerly known as “Morality in Media,” a bunch of prudish busybodies who believe all pornography should be banned, and who began life trying to get “salacious” magazines banned.

When a bill is getting supportive quotes from NCOSE, an organization whose entire formation story is based around an attempt to ban books, you know that bill is not good for speech.

Why is a Democratic Senator like Blumenthal lining up with such regressive, censorial, far right nonsense peddlers? Well, because he doesn’t give a shit that KOSA is going to do real harm to LGBTQ kids or violate the Constitution he swore an oath to protect: he just wants to get a headline or two claiming he’s protecting children, with not a single care about how much damage it will actually do.

Of course, as we noted, the latest bill does make it marginally more difficult to directly suppress LGBTQ content. It removed the ability of state Attorneys General to enforce one provision, the duty of care provision, though still allows them to enforce other provisions and to sue social media companies if those state AGs feel the companies aren’t complying with the law.

Still, at least some of the MAGA crowd feel that this move, making it marginally more difficult for state AGs to try to force LGBTQ content offline means the bill is no longer worth supporting. Here’s Charlie Kirk, a leading MAGA nonsense peddler who founded and runs Turning Point USA, whining that the bill is no longer okay, since it won’t be used to silence LGBTQ folks as easily:

Image

If you can’t read that, it’s Charlie saying:

The Senate is considering the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that looks to protect underage children from groomers, pornographers, and other predators online.

But the bill ran into trouble because LGBT groups were worried it would make it too easy for red state AGs to target predators who try to groom children into mutilating themselves or destroying themselves with hormones and puberty blockers.

So now, the bill has been overhauled to take away power from from state AGs (since some of them might be conservatives who care about children) and instead give almost all power to the FTC, currently read by ultra-left ideologue Lina Khan. Sure enough, LGBT groups have dropped all their concerns.

We’ve seen this pattern before. What are the odds that this bill does zero to protect children but a lot to vaguely enhance the power of Washington bureaucrats to destroy whoever they want, for any reason?

If you can get past his ridiculous language, you can see that he’s (once again, like the Heritage Foundation and KOSA co-sponsor Senator Marsha Blackburn before him) admitting that the reason the MAGA crowd supports KOSA is to silence LGBTQ voices, which he falsely attacks as “groomers, pornographers, and other predators.”

He’s wrong that the bill can’t still be used for this, but he’s correct that the bill now gives tremendous power to whoever is in charge of the FTC, whether its Lina Khan… or whatever MAGA incel could be put in place if Trump wins.

Meanwhile, if Kirk is so concerned about child predators and groomers, it’s odd you never see him call out the Catholic church. Or, his former employee who was recently sentenced to years in jail for his “collection” of child sexual abuse videos. Or the organization that teamed up with Turning Point USA to sponsor an event, even though the CEO was convicted of “coercing and enticing” a minor. It’s quite interesting that Kirk is so quick to accuse LGBTQ folks of “grooming” and “predation,” when he keeps finding actual such people around himself, and he never says a word.

Either way, I’m curious if watching groups like TPUSA freak out about this bill not being censorial enough of LGBTQ content will lead Republicans to get cold feet on supporting this bill.

At the very least, though, it’s a confirmation that Republican support for this bill is based on their strong belief that it will censor and suppress LGBTQ content.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: american principles project, ncose, talking points usa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Prominent MAGA Supporter Is Worried New KOSA Won’t Suppress Enough LGBTQ Speech”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
158 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

what would you have them do, suppress opposing viewpoints like the fascists do

Suppress them via government power or threats of violence? No.

Suppress them by deplatforming their asses and refusing to treat their bullshit seriously? Abso-fucking-lutely.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re:

Well, right until even the hint of blame or accountability is aimed their way, at which point suddenly everything is everyone’s fault but theirs and how dare people try to oppress and/or discriminate against them by thinking that the rules/laws apply to them as well.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

― Jean-Paul Sartre

Dude was there for the original rise of fascism. He recognized even then that these are not serious people.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

To wit: Chaya Raichik arguing that her anti-queer rhetoric (including calling out schools for being queer-friendly and such) wasn’t a form of stochastic terrorism that eventually got the results she(’ll never openly admit she) wanted by way of the vicious beating and eventual death of Nex Benedict.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You’re probably replying to the same troll who thinks celebrating the deaths of Palestinian children in Gaza⁠—teens, tweens, toddlers, babies⁠—is the height of hilarity, moral righteousness, or both. My guess is they’re a late-teens/early-twenties dipshit who thinks 4chan’s /pol/ is “based and redpilled” and thinks trolling other websites by saying edgy edgelord shit makes them equally as based instead of just an annoying jackass. I also run on the assumption that they’re the same troll who does the “I’m so left-wing that I think all the cishets should be purged from society” schtick because he desperately wants someone here to agree with that bullshit so he can post more “I’m so right-wing that I worship Hitler” bullshit in response.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

Short answer: It still can enter the House. But starting house negotiations in March results in a bill that is unlikely to move everything forward before a new congress is seated in January. Once a new congress is seated, all bills that failed to be signed into law are dead, and it has to start all over.

The abbreivated sequence:
-Negotiations/passage in Senate
[KOSA has failed to reach even this stage]
-Negotiations/passage in House (who goes first changes)
-Reconciliation (make the house and senate bills the same via negotiation.)
-Pass the new bill in Senate
-Pass the new bill in House
-Presidental signature (becomes law) or Veto.
-Potential veto override votes in house and senate.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Well, because he doesn’t give a shit that KOSA is going to do real harm to LGBTQ kids

It’s been focus on the harms to the LGBTQ+ community, but I think it’s always worth pointing out that hiding this will also harm straight children. Attempting to hide one component of society is not healthy (to anyone), and it will just make encounters with the other part(s) of society more awkward and/or painful.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The second part of the plan is to raise straight kids to hate us and bully us into suicide when we’re young. That’s what this whole “anti-woke” thing is about. They want to create a society where we’re tortured for existing, and they’re doing everything they can to keep people from telling us that’s not okay.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'I don't get it, why are my enemies cheering on the bill I support...?'

This is why Blumenthal, a prominent Democrat, is putting out press releases including supportive quotes from infamous anti-LGBTQ groups like the Institute for Family Studies and the “American Principles Project” (one of the leading forces behind anti-trans bills across the US). Incredibly, it also has an approving quote from NCOSE, formerly known as “Morality in Media,” a bunch of prudish busybodies who believe all pornography should be banned, and who began life trying to get “salacious” magazines banned.

Continued support which should serve as a massive red flag for any (theoretically) pro-LGBTQ groups that maybe the amended bill isn’t as ‘harmless’ as they’ve been told.

Still, nice of the bigot here to make crystal clear why republicans are supporting the bill and in turn making it all the harder for any potential democrat supporters to even begin to claim that they aren’t willing to throw LGBTQ people under the bus if supporting the bill will give them a good soundbite.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

True enough, while a willingness to throw LGBTQ people to the bigots is damning enough even that would still be giving the politicians involved the benefit of the doubt that their motives aren’t actively malicious, where silencing and/or harming LGBTQ people is the goal rather than ‘just’ the price they’re willing to have others pay.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Which is probably why the Alabame Supreme Court recently ruled the way it did in re: in-vitro fertilization. The ruling was not only filled with religious bullshit, it cited Dobbs (i.e., the decision that killed Roe v. Wade) multiple times. If abortion and IVF are declared illegal, how much longer will Republicans wait until they come for birth control? (Aside from any already-existing efforts that aren’t really getting much traction, anyway.)

Female autonomy scares the shit out of insecure men. Both the Republican Party and its primary voting base is full of insecure men. Is it any surprise, then, that the party wants to strip women of their reproductive autonomy⁠—possibly to the point where pregnancy-via-rape would be considered a viable repopulation strategy?

ECA (profile) says:

We used to have a naem for thses folks,. “??” minority. It was a good name.
NOW someone figured out that creating a Business behind it, “Institute for Family Studies; “American Principles Project” and NCOSE”, Makes them sound more important, and that they have Many people behind them.

This is a 10% group of people, complaining about Another <10% of people. Which makes them only a distraction.

Blumenthal
78 years old, Held offices in state since 1977. 46 years of service? He could of retired Long ago. Now he is trying to make a Name for himself, before he Quits or dies.
Look up his Controversial 4 year military history.

ECA (profile) says:

I really love how SOME people thinkl

that Pointing fingers will Solve problems.
Passing Blame for something is the best way to HIDE THINGS. Look up Anita Bryant(sp).
99% of these persons Problems are AT HOME. they have nothing to DO with anyone else.
Those Puberty Pills? YOUR PARENTS GIVE their own children, to KEEP them as children.
When I was younger, it was GAY PEOPLE and Black that were the problem. FOR WHAT(as a kid, I didnt know).

WE need a state of WHITE PEOPLE ONLY. Just to ship them there, and SHIP food to them that ONLY White people touched. It wont be much, but at least, when they FIND a problem They will KNOW who did it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

WE need a state of WHITE PEOPLE ONLY. Just to ship them there, and SHIP food to them that ONLY White people touched. It wont be much, but at least, when they FIND a problem They will KNOW who did it.

They can shit their pants and blame a Mexican. If they get their way and fully gut the social security programs that keep their states viable, they’ll still find a way to blame those of us in blue states that are currently paying to keep their shitholes even borderline viable.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that could ever get conservatives to take responsibility for their own disasters.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
NoahVail (profile) says:

Dang. Missed the reality again.

LGBT groups were worried it would make it too easy for red state AGs to target predators who try to groom children

Like every anti-LGBT conservative, he crafts his statements to avoid a super important detail – that the vast, vast majority of people who groom children for sexual intent are straight men.

Violet Aubergine (profile) says:

Re:

You can do as you please here but if you really want to defend queer people maybe start with a login so people reading your comments don’t mix them in with all the other anonymous comments. It’s totally your right to be anonymous but doing so means your words will definitely be mixed in with other anonymous speakers because we cannot magically tell who is who. We can make educated guesses but they’re still just guesses.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matt Bennett says:

No, he was worried about groomers

You’re the one equating pedophiles with LGBQHUIHDFIUHA+ Kinda homophobic of you to be honest.

And basically, he’s right, that the more prosecutorial discretion rests with not just the executive branch, but the federal executive branch alone, the more we are going to see ideological prosecution, lawfare, and a tiered legal system depending wholly on where the accused stands in comparison to the party in charge.

Hey, are you still censoring any comment that mentioned you by name “Musnick”, or your lack of legal knowledge?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Do…do you think that the existence of a wiki page somehow means gay groomers aren’t a thing? Cuz they are very obviously a thing.

Care to guess at the incidence rates? There are stats, tho the most recent study on the subject I could find was 1992, presumably since everyone since has been afraid of getting called a homophobe.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Do…do you think that the existence of a wiki page somehow means gay groomers aren’t a thing? Cuz they are very obviously a thing.

And do you think that the existence of gay groomers somehow means straight groomers aren’t a thing? Cuz they are very obviously a thing.

There is zero evidence of LGBT over-representation in actual groomers (as opposed to the RWNJ definition). By banging on about gay groomers you’re effectively minimising and even dismissing the crimes of straight groomers, which is pretty vile.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

There is zero evidence of LGBT over-representation in actual groomers

It appears to be about twice, per capita, maybe a hair less.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/

Of course, the point of the bill is to protect children. LGBT groups objected. Much as they object to bills meant to get porn out of schools, as if that somehow is solely targeting them.

Aren’t you supposed to be defending holocaust deniers or something?

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Of course, the point of the bill is to protect children.

Because that’s what the name says, right?! I bet you believe the DPRK is a democratic country too.

LGBT groups objected. Much as they object to bills meant to get porn out of schools, as if that somehow is solely targeting them.

Just because you sexually-supressed weirdos call it porn, doesn’t mean it actually is.

Maybe you’re all just really gullible…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Just because you sexually-supressed weirdos call it porn, doesn’t mean it actually is.

It’s porn cuz it’s porn. Like when they showed it on TV they had to blur it out.

Don’t try to change the subject just cuz you got owned on “There is zero evidence of LGBT over-representation in actual groomers”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Except a lot of things those book bans have hit are not porn…

And to my memory, the news you were referring to was a fox clip. Which actually hurts it’s credibility since Fox has been periodically airing anti-lgbt pieces with known false accusations/information since at least as far back as 2021.

You wanna know what was also showed on tv? The footage of a district meeting where religious (they literally invoked god in their speech) bigots were using the law to justify banning And Tango Makes Three.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Except a lot of things those book bans have hit are not porn…

…according to librarians who do cute things like remove every book from the library claiming the law applies to them? It’s just not true.

And to my memory, the news you were referring to was a fox clip

Blatant ad hominem aside, no, it was a press conference, shown on the evening news on LOTS of channels, they all blurred it.

Two swings two misses.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

according to librarians who do cute things like remove every book from the library claiming the law applies to them?

You ever hear of the phrase “better safe than sorry”? The whole point of the mass removal of books from classroom and school libraries is to ensure that those in charge of such libraries don’t face any legal liabilities if they leave up a book that, under the law, would net them fines, possibly jail time, and even the loss of their job should a child access a book that the law says they shouldn’t have. It’s the same reasoning behind multiple healthcare facilities in Alabama pausing their IVF treatments after the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that said “frozen embryos are children”: Those facilities don’t want to face any legal liability for what happens to those embryos, especially if the mishandling and subsequent destruction of said embryos could result in someone facing, say, a felony manslaughter charge. I know you want to think that those kinds of laws/rulings are clear-cut and easy to discern, but the reactions I laid out above tell me that the laws/rulings are so broad in scope that an abundance of caution is basically required to steer clear of legal liability (both civil and criminal).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

It’s porn cuz it’s porn.

High school debate champion here folks.

Don’t try to change the subject just cuz you got owned on “There is zero evidence of LGBT over-representation in actual groomers”

Owned? Hah! Your credibility with presented evidence is extremely low, so I’ll take your singular report of unknown provenance with many grains of salt. The only people publicly claiming over-representation are hateful bigots like you. Meanwhile in the fucking churches…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

By banging on about gay groomers you’re effectively minimising and even dismissing the crimes of straight groomers

Bratty Matt does carry water for the same political party that often opposes laws abolishing child marriage and takes little-to-no substantive action to address the sexual abuse of children in churches, so you’re not wrong here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You mean the notoriously red wing, republican run states and cities of the Northeast, where the majority of the US catholics are?

I hate to break this to you, Matt, but the institution of the Catholic Church…

  1. …isn’t a bastion of liberalism and progressive thought…
  2. …runs churches in places that are controlled by Republicans, and…
  3. isn’t the only religious institution facing a child abuse scandal.

And I stand by what I said about Republicans, because the party’s alignment with powerful conservative Christians often prevents Republicans from doing anything substantive about child sex abuse in churches (Catholic or otherwise). If you can prove that more Republicans than Democrats are trying to push for reforms that require priests to be mandatory reporters for child abuse claims, I’m all ears.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I hate to break this to you, Matt, but the institution of the Catholic Church…

It’s pretty bleeding heart liberal actually. Just not socially progressive. And it certainly had the BIGGEST pedophile scandal and it certainly is mostly in blue states, and just generally I think you’re proving that…

takes little-to-no substantive action to address the sexual abuse of children in churches

…you had no point here.

because the party’s alignment with powerful conservative Christians often prevents Republicans from doing anything substantive about child sex

No, it doesn’t. This is WHOLLY in your own head. It’s just some dumb shit you made up. Because you hate republicans. That’s it.

If you can prove that more Republicans than Democrats are trying to push for reforms that require priests to be mandatory reporters for child abuse claims,

I do love these hoops you dream up, but that would completely be against the 1st amendment. So like are trying to say if more republicans don’t want to do something unconstitutional then they like pedophiles more? Nevermind yes of course you’re trying to say that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

No, it doesn’t.

Then where, oh where, is the groundswell of support from Republicans for laws that require religious clergy to be mandatory reporters for child sex abuse claims? Because if Republicans wanted to do anything substantive about child sex abuse in churches (Catholic or otherwise), they would be supporting and passing such laws.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Then where, oh where, is the groundswell of support from Republicans for laws that require religious clergy to be mandatory reporters for child sex abuse claims?

Why are you making me repeat myself?

“I do love these hoops you dream up, but that would completely be against the 1st amendment. So like are trying to say if more republicans don’t want to do something unconstitutional then they like pedophiles more? Nevermind yes of course you’re trying to say that.”

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Why are you making me repeat myself?

Because I want to know why you think Republicans are doing anything substantive to address the institutional sex abuse of children in churches (Catholic or otherwise) when, as far as I can tell, they’ll gladly shoot down any attempt to pass laws that would designate clergy as mandatory reporters of child sex abuse claims. (Not to mention how Republicans largely fight attempts to ban child marriages.) I’m not saying outright that Republicans are pedophiles or that Republicans support pedophiles. What I’m saying is that Republicans are so closely connected to conservative Christian groups (and their massive amounts of money) that, more often than not, Republicans will refuse to address child sex abuse scandals in churches with any substantive action all so they can avoid pissing off those groups (and losing access to that money). If I can be proven wrong on this, I would welcome that⁠—but I’m confident that I won’t be.

As for the unconstitutionality of the proposal: We have doctor/patient confidentiality laws and doctors are still required by law to report any claim or evidence of the sexual abuse of a child. If the law can pierce that privilege with a fine needle for the sake of stopping a predator, I see no reason why it can’t similarly pierce the priest/penitent privilege for the same purpose⁠—especially if an institution like the Catholic Church keeps saying that it wants to do whatever it can to stop the sexual abuse of children. Yes, the First Amendment is a concern, but the First Amendment also allows for exceptions when there is a compelling government interest. If you even think of telling me that the government doesn’t have a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual predators, you might want to delete whatever response you were already writing, then go touch some grass for a few days.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Where in this contract to which you refer, is the text stating exactly what can be done with the resulting product?

Where/how does this ‘contract’ bind the requestor to only use it as approved by the maker of same?

In the absence of any agreed to binding statement(s), I have to assume that the user is allowed to do whatever they please with the product they paid for.

What say you Purveyor of Bullshitism?

Destroyer209 says:

Blumenthal is a coward

Mike I’ve been reading your articles about KOSA and I agree with what you covered so far.

I’ve been watching KOSA/EARN IT since last year and I noticed that both were snuck through committees especially when the debt ceiling/default situation was happening last year.

Blumenthal is a opportunistic, cowardly, lying scumbag who uses bills like KOSA to act like he is a savior to kids in his decaying mind but of course in reality he’s willing to work with anyone who supports his anti-internet crusade in disguise of “think of the children”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Bloof (profile) says:

Re:

Good job conservatives are there to protect kids, eh?What with their prevention of laws banning child marriage, consistent attacks on sex ed that would teach kids what abuse and grooming actually is, the never ending protection of groomers in positions of power within religious institutions… Oh, and the promotion and protection of literal cults who can’t continue to exist without patience forcing their children to attend indoctrination sessions at least once a week and using the machinery of government to ban books and attack the education system to cut off any access hey have to a world view that doesn’t revolve around the teachings of a 1500 year old book.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...