#ftc ask

[13leaguestories]

Feel free to ignore this if you don't want to answer ofc, but those asks about Superstition & Insight made me wonder about For The Crown. It's my fave out of your WIPs, I loved the child soldier/assassin MC + the whole going undercover in a royal court aspect!

I checked and the last post in the tag was this one (https://www.tumblr.com/13leaguestories/744748222113808384/i-just-realized-that-for-the-crown-was-canceled). Since it was 6 months ago, is that still where you are now, that it may or may not come back altered in some way? Or are you leaning towards a particular direction?

Um ... I'm still pretty much still there. It's still teetering in limbo though so don't get excited. I think if I do get back into it I might do something similar to ToA and make routes out of it. But at the same time I'd have to go through and see exactly how that would work. It'd be great on one hand because let's say you wanted Lord Doran, well the original story you won't see much of him until the second half but with routes you'd see and focus on him more. But then that also means a lot of story twisting.

So, we'll see. I haven't really given it much thought but I know I 100% want to put that art to good use.

[adecila]

Has “for the cameras” been discontinued? 🥺

No, darling, I just girl bossed too close to the sun, and I became so important at my day job that since November last year, I couldn’t have any hobbies because I didn't have any free time 😂

The good news is that my big project is done and results were amazing. Now I just came back from a month long holiday, so I am finally working on FTC. It will come (hopefully soon)!

[peliginspeaks]

To the frostbitten tomb colonist: have you had a favourite profession from over the years?

Her eyes seem to light up a bit, which is quite a feat for two empty voids amid a nest of bandages.

"I quite liked being a pirate back in the day, before they were styling themselves 'corsairs'."

She folds her hands over her cane and continues in a voice like a cold draft through paper.

"I always did find it so quaint how surprised the crews would get when I boarded them. It is so funny how all across history, people seem not to realize that others can simply take things. It got boring after a while, though, of course." She tilts her head. "I suppose zailors expect it more, these days."

[byrdstrolls]

Bulk anon wannabe

I have unsurprising news

[riftdancing]

haunt·ed (adjective) 1. inhabited or frequented by ghosts. a haunted castle. 2. preoccupied, as with emotion, memory, or idea; obsessed: His haunted imagination gave him no peace.

Unfortunately for me, it's both. It's been over two decades since you passed, but I still see you in the mirror every morning. Your judgement echoes in my ears and your haunting white eye continues to scrutinize my every move. My technique. Never quick enough. Foot work is always sloppy. Missed a spot cleaning that revolver barrel…

Was it love or obsession? Did you really love me, or were you chasing the remaining desire for my late Mother? I see her when I look in the mirror too. In my own reflection. In my features. I was not woman enough to be the daughter she wanted. I was not loyal enough for my Father's pride. I was not obedient enough for my Brother's care.

They all share your grave now.

Sometimes I feel ill when I miss you.

I remember when Father gave me to you. Like an object or a toy he'd discarded, something he'd grown bored of after I didn't fulfill his expectations. After I filled him with disappointment. I don't blame him entirely. After all I betrayed all of them. Not just the family… but the entire crew too. Even when he gave me to you, you didn't want me and I wanted nothing to do with you. I was a burden, but you made me useful. While Father ensured I'd never see the inside of another cockpit you honed me into a fine weapon. At first I hated you for it, but you taught me discipline and over time I learned how to be a ghost, just like you. Your very own protégé...

...But you are gone, and I still feel your gaze from behind. I still feel you watching when I look over my shoulder. When I am with someone new. Heckling me about having a particular type. That I am still soft. Vulnerable. Weak. Womanly. A hound ready to obey. Maybe I am.

He says it too and in many ways, he reminds me of you. He is one of the few people on this star who has proven to be worthy of my subordinance. But unlike our troubled past, he doesn't force me to be something or someone I don't want to be.

He is the catalyst to my healing.

He has taught me my choices are my own.

From now on I will no longer be a slave to my past.

((There's a bit of context in bullet points under the cut for this if it interests you but it's really raw because she's got a very long and complicated story as I've been writing her since 2011.))

Some bullet points on Blink's early history:

Blink was born into a life of Sky Piracy.

Her Father was the Sky Pirate Captain of the Harbingers.

His First Mate was a man named Judas, who was known in more public circles as a ghost-like assassin.

Blink fell in love with a pirate in a rival crew and tried to secretly elope with them. Her Father found out, he saw it as a huge betrayal, and sent Judas to hunt her and the lad down.

Judas killed the guy in front of her, brought her back to her Father.

Her Father disowned her after arranging her marriage to Judas (something neither of them wanted)

Judas viewed her as a burden, and basically decided when life gives you lemons, you turn them into your protégé and train them like a soldier.

This brought the pair of them closer over time… and as they'd both been screwed by the Crew's bullshit hierarchy and politics they decided to do something about it together.

Judas wound up fighting Blink's Father for Captaincy, and won. While it was supposed to be a fight to the death, he let the man still walk away with his life.

He was a good Captain for a while, with Blink as his First Mate and under the two the Crew had a prosperous window.

But, unfortunately her brother thought he was entitled to inheriting the title of Captain and was furious about Judas killing his Father. So eventually he wound up fighting Judas and killed him-- in front of Blink, taking up the role as Captain (and he was terrible at it.)

Blink wound up going into hiding for six years after this. There was some more trauma laced in this I won't get into. But when she surfaced again she had enlisted with Garlemald to become one of their soldiers. Which is a whole other arc I won't get into tonight. But… that's some context to this story/post.

Fast forwarding past the Garlemald years... I will at least say that Blink eventually wound up fighting to get the Harbingers back and served as their Captain for a good while (The crew's choice). It was basically the crew's golden years with her in the lead. However, eventually she decided it wasn't the life for her, so she wound up retiring to do piloting work and that's how she fell in with Firelight Trading Co. To this day, the Harbingers still revere her as their Captain even though she's passed that title on to someone she trusted.

But yeah, ask me about those Garlean years sometime... those are a doozy. Like an Event Horizon inspired arc through Void Ark... :|

[ayyy-imma-ninja]

I’m not done reading your third chapter of the sk boys BUT so far I’m absolutely adoring it! The part where sunny gets yanked back into the apartment was such a fun image to imagine, you’re very talented!

hehehe, I love portraying their goofy shenanigins XD

You would have no idea they just killed someone the night before~

[inrainprose]

I'd like to vent 🙋‍♀️

narutos complete non reaction at finding out kakashi, jiraiya and hiruzen knew about his parents the whole time but just didn't say shit pisses me off SO MUCH. if there was ONE time he deserved to just rage a little. it was then!!

Been said before but to me it makes it really obvious that this wasn't planned at all and kishimoto came up with it later in the story. Otherwise he would have hinted at something, and they would have been written and would have reacted much differently.

It's either that or they were all terrible people and the story never goes back on that. What a mess. Naruto should have decked them.

[confined-existence]

Find The Chomiks Realm: Backrooms; Level 28: Stormstone Keep

Absolutely in love with this level aksjbfkafn

[ella-animine]

Attn: Those interested in death/dying, or ppl who don’t wanna go broke going into the earth

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is revisiting policy about the funeral industry known as Funeral Rule. This means they are examining decisions made in the 1980’s about what funeral homes and the business of funerals is REQUIRED TO DO FOR CONSUMERS

And let’s be honest, we are all (or will be) consumers of the funeral industry.

Right now the FTC is looking to gather feedback from experts, organizations, and individuals about how they should move forward with Funeral Rule. In particular they are concerned with whether funeral homes should be required to

list prices for services online,

whether any additional or hidden fees should be disclosed,

whether they should amend how a funeral homes disclose their embalming practices,

if new forms of disposition should be included under the rule,

and a few other things dealing with accessibility and underserved communities.

Go to this website to share your thoughts! The more detailed and well researched the better, but ALL comments are valuable.

We are an aging population Tumblr, and as it stands the average cost of a funeral in the US is about $8,000.

TLDR: tell the FTC what information you think the funeral industry should be required to share regarding pricing, fees, and embalming policies.

It is more expensive than ever to die, and without clear rules and regulations the funeral industrial complex will continue to jack up the price and take advantage of grieving individuals with hidden pricing, fees, and deceptive language to make you buy things you don’t actually need.

Your voice matters. Share it

[13leaguestories]

I feel so dumb for asking but in Superstition, is Lucia the witch from the For the Crown realm the same person as Lucia the witch from the real world?

No, and I wouldn't have even realized that I used the two names if you didn't say anything. But damn that would've been a cool little world blend huh, the witch managed to like divide or something. I don't know, lol.

[adecila]

hi alice! just wanted to tell you whenever I play ”I can see you” lately I think of ftc!dany writing it daydreaming about jon lol

Amazing taste, babes. Btw that song is on my on repeat playlist 😚

[rocketsagan-blog]

I was going to craft a post like this one, so THANK YOU KIND WHILOMM for doing the good death-care work <3

If you're in the US, spread this around.

Death in America should not be so expensive, and clear pricing as well as clear wording around embalming would make a world of difference for a lot of families!

to help spread the word a lil, ask a mortician just put out a new video, this one specifically about proposed FTC regulation changes for U.S. funeral homes, and theres a comment period that closes October 10th, 2023 to ya kno. comment on em. tell em to help make funerals a lil cheaper.

I would really reccomend watching the video as she explains it a lot better, but the TLDR is that the FTC is thinking of adding some rules to the regs on how funeral homes disclose a couple of things, like prices (making them list prices online, so you dont need to drive to 7 diff funeral homes to price shop the day your son died, and cause hidden prices=more expensive), and make it clearer WHEN embalming is required (that is, that its NOT required by law, but might be required by the funeral home themselves)

like i said, watch the vid for a better explaination, but both of those things contribute to funerals being Mega Fucking Expensive, so. if you feel like it, go to the FTC and tell em to implement the changes!

comment period ends october 10th, 2023!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Mark Zuckerberg personally lost the Facebook antitrust case

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me at NEW ZEALAND'S UNITY BOOKS in AUCKLAND on May 2, and in WELLINGTON on May 3. More tour dates (Pittsburgh, PDX, London, Manchester) here.

It's damned hard to prove an antitrust case: so often, the prosecution has to prove that the company intended to crush competition, and/or that they raised prices or reduced quality because they knew they didn't have to fear competitors.

It's a lot easier to prove what a corporation did than it is to prove why they did it. What am I, a mind-reader? But imagine for a second that the corporation in the dock is a global multinational. Now, imagine that the majority of the voting shares in that company are held by one man, who has served as the company's CEO since the day he founded it, personally calling every important shot in the company's history.

Now imagine that this founder/CEO, this accused monopolist, was an incorrigible blabbermouth, who communicated with his underlings almost exclusively in writing, and thus did he commit to immortal digital storage a stream – a torrent – of memos in which he explicitly confessed his guilt.

Ladies and gentlepersons, I give you Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Meta (nee Facebook), an accused monopolist who cannot keep his big dumb fucking mouth shut.

At long, long last, the FTC's antitrust trial against Meta is underway, and this week, Zuck himself took the stand, in agonizing sessions during which FTC lawyers brandished printouts of Zuck's own words before him, asking him to explain away his naked confessions of guilt. It did not go well for Zuck.

In a breakdown of the case for The American Prospect, editor-in-chief David Dayen opines that "The Government Has Already Won the Meta Case," having hanged Zuck on his own words:

https://prospect.org/power/2025-04-16-government-already-won-meta-case-tiktok-ftc-zuckerberg/

The government is attempting to prove that Zuck bought Instagram and Whatsapp in order to extinguish competitors (and not, for example, because he thought they were good businesses that complemented Facebook's core product offerings).

This case starts by proving how Zuck felt about Insta and WA before the acquisitions. On Insta, Zuck circulated memos warning about Insta's growth trajectory:

they appear to be reaching critical mass as a place you go to share photos

and how that could turn them into a future competitor:

[Instagram could] copy what we’re doing now … I view this as a big strategic risk for us if we don’t completely own the photos space.

These are not the words of a CEO who thinks another company is making a business that complements his own – they're confessions that he is worried that they will compete with Facebook. Facebook tried to clone Insta (Remember Facebook Camera? Don't feel bad – neither does anyone else). When that failed, Zuck emailed Facebook execs, writing:

[Instagram's growth is] really scary and why we might want to consider paying a lot of money for this.

At this point, Zuck's CFO – one of the adults in the room, attempting to keep the boy king from tripping over his own dick – wrote to Zuck warning him that it was illegal to buy Insta in order to "neutralize a potential competitor."

Zuck replied that he was, indeed, solely contemplating buying Insta in order to neutralize a potential competitor. It's like this guy kept picking up his dictaphone, hitting "record," and barking, "Hey Bob, I am in receipt of your memo of the 25th, regarding the potential killing of Fred. You raise some interesting points, but I wanted to reiterate that this killing is to be a murder, and it must be as premeditated as possible. Yours very truly, Zuck."

Did Zuck buy Insta to neutralize a competitor? Sure seems like it! For one thing, Zuck cancelled all work on Facebook Camera "since we're acquiring Instagram."

But what about after the purchase. Did Zuck reduce quality and/or raise costs? Well, according to the company, it enacted an "explicit policy of not prioritizing Instagram’s growth" (a tactic called "buy or bury"). At this juncture, Zuckerberg once again put fingers to keyboard in order to create an immortal record of his intentions:

By not killing their products we prevent everyone from hating us and we make sure we don’t immediately create a hole in the market for someone else to fill.

And if someone did enter the market with a cool new gimmick (like, say, Snapchat with its disappearing messages)?

Even if some new competitors spring up, if we incorporate the social mechanics they were using, these new products won’t get much traction since we’ll already have their mechanics deployed at scale.

Remember, the Insta acquisition is only illegal if Zuck bought them to prevent competition in the marketplace (rather than, say, to make a better product). It's hard to prove why a company does anything, unless its CEO, founder, and holder of the majority of its voting stock explicitly states that his strategy is to create a system to ensure that innovating new products "won't get much traction" because he'll be able to quickly copy them.

So we have Zuck starving Insta of development except when he needs to neutralize a competitor, which is just another way of saying he set out to reduce the quality of the product after acquisition, a thing that is statutorily prohibited, but hard to prove (again, unless you confess to it in writing, herp derp).

But what about prices? Well, obviously, Insta doesn't charge its end-users in cash, but they do charge in attention. If you want to see the things you've explicitly asked for – posts from accounts you follow – you have to tolerate a certain amount of "boosted content" and ads, that is, stuff that Facebook's business customers will pay to nonconsensually cram into your eyeballs.

Did that price go up? Any Insta user knows the answer: hell yes. Instagram is such a cesspit of boosted content and ads that it's almost impossible to find stuff you actually asked to see. Indeed, when a couple of teenagers hacked together an alternative Insta client called OG App that only showed you posts from accounts you followed, it was instantly the most popular app on Google Play and Apple's App Store (and then Google and Apple killed it, at Meta's request):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But why did the price go up? Did it go up because Facebook had neutralized a competitor by purchasing it, and thus felt that it could raise prices without losing customers? Again, a hard thing to prove…unless Zuck happened to put it in writing. Which he did, as Brendan Benedict explains in Big Tech On Trial:

I think we’re badly mismanaging this right now. There’s absolutely no reason why IG ad load should be lower than FB at a time when . . . we’re having engagement issues in FB. If we were managing our company correctly, then at a minimum we’d immediately balance IG and FB ad load . . . But it’s possible we should even have a higher ad load on IG while we have this challenge so we can replace some ads with [People You May Know] on FB to turn around the issues we’re seeing.

https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/zuckerberg-v-zuckerberg-will-the

So there you have it: Zuck bought Insta to neutralize a competitor, and after he did, he lowered its quality and raised its prices, because he knew that he was operating without significant competitors thanks to his acquisition of that key competitor. Zuck's motivations – as explained by Zuck himself – were in direct contravention of antitrust law, a thing he knew (because his execs explained it to him). That's a pretty good case.

But what about Whatsapp? How did Zuck feel about it? Well, he told his board that Whatsapp was Facebook's greatest "consumer risk," fretting that "Messenger isn’t beating WhatsApp." He blocked Whatsapp ads on Facebook, telling his team that it was "trying to build social networks and replace us." Sure, they'd lose money by turning away that business, but the "revenue is immaterial to us compared to any risk." Sure seems like Zuck saw Whatsapp as a competitor.

Meta's final line of defense in this case is that even if they did some crummy, illegal things, they still didn't manage to put together a monopoly. According to Meta's lawyers – who're billing the company more than $1m/day! – Meta is a tiny fish in a vast ocean that has many competitors, like Tiktok:

https://www.levernews.com/mr-zuckerbergs-very-expensive-day-in-court/

There's only one problem with this "market definition" argument, and that problem's name is Chatty Mark Zuckerberg. On the question of market definition, FTC lawyers once again raised Zuckerberg's own statements and those of his top lieutenants to show that Zuckerberg viewed his companies as "Personal Social Networks" (PSNs) and not as just generic sites full of stuff, competing with Youtube, Tiktok, and everyone else who lets users post things to the internet.

Take Instagram boss Adam Mosseri, who explained that:

Instagram will always need to focus on friends and can never exclusively be for public figures or will cease to be a social product.

And then there was Zuck's memo explaining why he offered $6b for Snapchat:

Snap Stories serves the exact same use case of sharing and consuming feeds of content that News Feed and Instagram deliver. We need to take this new dynamic seriously—both as a competitive risk and as a product opportunity to add functionality that many people clearly love and want to use daily.

And an internal strategy document that explained the competitive risks to Facebook:

Social networks have two stable equilibria: either everyone uses them, or no-one uses them. In contrast, nonsocial apps (e.g. weather apps, exercise apps) can exist [somewhere] along a continuum of adoption. The binary nature of social networks implies that there should exist a tipping point, ie some critical mass of adoption, above which a network will organically grow, and below which it will shrink.

Sure sounds like Facebook sees itself as a "social network," and not a "nonsocial app." And of course – as Dayen points out – when Tiktok (a company Meta claims as a competitor) went up for sale, Meta did not enter a bid, despite being awash in free cash flow.

In Zuckerberg's defense, he's not the only tech CEO who confesses his guilt in writing (recall that FTX planned its crimes in a groupchat called WIREFRAUD). Partly that's because these firms are run by arrogant twits, but partly it's because digital culture is a written culture, where big, dispersed teams expected to work long hours from offices all over the world as well as from their phones every hour of day and night have to rely on memos to coordinate:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

When Dayen claims that "the government has won the Meta case," he doesn't mean the judge will rule in the FTC's favor (though there's a high likelihood that this will happen). Rather, he means that the case has been proven beyond any kind of reasonable doubt, in public, in a way that has historically caused other monopolists to lose their nerve, even if they won their cases. Take Microsoft and IBM – though both companies managed to draw out their cases until a new Republican administration (Reagan for IBM, GWB for Microsoft) took office and let them off the hook, both companies were profoundly transformed by the process.

IBM created the market for a generic, multivendor PC whose OS came from outside the company:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/ibm-pc-compatible-how-adversarial-interoperability-saved-pcs-monopolization

And Microsoft spared Google the same treatment it had meted out to Netscape, allowing the company to grow and thrive:

https://apnews.com/article/google-apple-microsoft-antitrust-technology-cases-1e0c510088825745a6e74ba3b81b44c6

Trump being Trump, it's not inconceivable that he will attempt to intervene to get the judge to exonerate Meta. After all, Zuck did pay him a $1m bribe and then beg him to do just that:

https://gizmodo.com/zuckerberg-really-thought-trump-would-make-metas-legal-problems-go-away-2000589897

But as Dayen writes, the ire against Meta's monopolistic conduct is thoroughly bipartisan, and if Trump was being strategic here (a very, very big "if"), he would keep his powder dry here. After all, if the judge doesn't convict Meta, Trump won't have wasted any political capital. And if Meta is convicted, Trump could solicit more bribes and favors at the "remedy" stage, when a court will decide how to punish Meta, which could be anything from a fine to a breakup order, to a nothingburger of vague orders to clean up its act.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/18/chatty-zucky/#is-you-taking-notes-on-a-criminal-fucking-conspiracy

[mollyjimbly]

🚨🚨🚨RED ALERT🚨🚨🚨

if you care about trans folks please take a few minutes to read through this post and share.

They are not even trying to hide their true intentions with KOSA...

"Top of the agenda is to go after providers of gender affirming care, including for adults. The FTC could also go after online platforms for displaying LGBTQ content which would be supercharged under KOSA."

This is catastrophically bad.

There is a HUGE push to pass KOSA rn at the end of the year.

Real quick summary: Blumenthal and Blackburn "rewrote" KOSA to appeal to the right more. They worked with ELON MUSK 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️ to push this bill "protecting kids". Tomorrow, many orgs are bringing groups of parents to speak to congress. This is coming at a time when FTC commissioner admitted their agenda is straight transphobia:

There are two ways KOSA can be passed right now. Either from the House or attaching it to an end of year spending bill. They will try both.

Republican leadership (Scalise and Johnson) are surprisingly what is stopping thia from going through. They wont admit it out loud but they dont like the bill.

WE NEED TO PUSH BACK NOW!! Tomorrow those phones need to be ringing OFF THE HOOK while they meet with parents.

PLEASE SPREAD THIS EVERYWHERE!! ADD THESE LINKS TO TWITTER, REDDIT, INSTA, TIKTOK!!

USE THESE CALLING TOOLS AND SCRIPTS TODAY AND TOMORROW ALL DAY!!!

SCRIPTS:

🔴 If your rep is GOP:

"I am urging you to VOTE NO on KOSA, the Kid’s Online Safety Act. This is a dangerous bill that will harm children.

Many news organizations have reported that this bill actively harms kids by exposing their private data to strangers under the guise of protecting them.

We need to hold Big Tech accountable, but KOSA is not the solution.

The bill let any state attorney general and the FTC to sue any website for “harmful” content. Do we really want blue state lawyers deciding what can and can’t be allowed online?

Big Tech is already censoring us. That’s why they support KOSA. This is massive government overreach. We need a bill that actually protects children by creating better security measures instead of bringing about more censorship.

Multiple experts agree this bill pushes age verification, even with the new language.

KOSA hands more private data of children to third party companies, which would put them in further danger. How is this protecting children’s privacy?

What parent would want their child’s private data in the hands of strangers like this? KOSA is actively putting kids in danger.

Do NOT support this bill. Thank you."

Also,to note, Biden supports KOSA: You could try asking your GOP rep why they would support a bill that has Biden's support,and that he could use it to his advantage somehow (we know GOP does not like Biden,so it should be utilized somehow). We need to ensure the bill doesnt pass at all.

🔵 if your rep is DEM:

"I am urging you to VOTE NO on KOSA. Nearly 200 human rights and LGBT organizations total came out in an open letter opposing it. The ACLU is against it. Hundreds of thousands of Gen Z, who actually live online, are against it.

We know the harms of social media, and we know this is not the solution. The new language does NOT meet any concerns brought up, in fact many organizations were ignored.

Major news have reported that this bill actively harms kids. We do not want this. The rewritten bill would still allow any state attorney general, and now the FTC, to sue any website for “harmful” content. When you have Republicans calling anything LGBT “sexual exploitation” or anything about race “CRT” to successfully ban books and teachers, then they will use any justification to censor the internet.

The Missouri attorney general used “mental health” successfully to ban gender-affirming care with backed up research. Suicide rates will skyrocket for marginalized youth with this bill restricting content. Multiple experts agree this bill pushes age verification, even with the new language.

KOSA hands more private data of children to third party companies. Furthermore, updated language threatens encryption the same way the Earn It Act does.

How is this protecting children’s privacy? KOSA actively harms kids. Do NOT support this bill. Thank you."

Tell them you'll vote for your reps if they vote no on KOSA, anything goes. But most importantly it's crucial that KOSA is not being brought at all for any vote.

Thank you, remember to stay calm and stay strong. We've got this!! ♡

[inrainprose]

Do you plan on writing the meeting of Naruto and Minato in as a flashback? I'd love to read the anger xD

That would be pretty satisfying ^^ I don't plan to add it to the main story cause a fb now would be a bit out of nowhere, but I always planned on doing a side collections of missing things for this fic, so maybe it will go there!

[taikeero-lecoredier]

HELP STOP KOSA,CALL YOUR HOUSE REPS

With the end of the year approaching, we are expecting KOSA to be slipped into an end of the year spending bill. We cannot allow it to pass. There has been push by parents to bring KOSA back, not aware how dangerous KOSA actually is for children online. It would make it mandatory for platforms online to enforce age verification via ID, and deeming any content "inappropriate" for kids to be banned.This could range from not safe for work content, to health ressources, to climate change. It'll be up to politicians to dictate what is and isn't proper for kids,and, of course, killing encryption. Imagine the damage. Please focus on the entire leadership of the House,as well as reps generally, telling them to not bring KOSA up. Speaker Johnson must also be contacted, whos number is: (202) 225-2777 Heres a list of House reps to contact: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IyBUe6frFGF44rJQU3TahZ5zyG3tC7jai_hPneAKlnM/edit?tab=t.0 Use the call tool to call the House : https://www.stopkosa.com/ https://www.badinternetbills.com/#kosa

Here are scripts you can use : if your rep is GOP : I am urging you to VOTE NO on KOSA, the Kid’s Online Safety Act. This is a dangerous bill that will harm children. Many news organizations have reported that this bill actively harms kids by exposing their private data to strangers under the guise of protecting them. We need to hold Big Tech accountable, but KOSA is not the solution. The bill let any state attorney general and the FTC to sue any website for “harmful” content. Do we really want blue state lawyers deciding what can and can’t be allowed online? Big Tech is already censoring us. That’s why they support KOSA. This is massive government overreach. We need a bill that actually protects children by creating better security measures instead of bringing about more censorship. Multiple experts agree this bill pushes age verification, even with the new language. KOSA hands more private data of children to third party companies, which would put them in further danger. How is this protecting children’s privacy? What parent would want their child’s private data in the hands of strangers like this? KOSA is actively putting kids in danger. Do NOT support this bill. Thank you. if your rep is DEM: I am urging you to VOTE NO on KOSA. Nearly 200 human rights and LGBT organizations total came out in an open letter opposing it. The ACLU is against it. Hundreds of thousands of Gen Z, who actually live online, are against it. We know the harms of social media, and we know this is not the solution. The new language does NOT meet any concerns brought up, in fact many organizations were ignored. Major news have reported that this bill actively harms kids. We do not want this. The rewritten bill would still allow any state attorney general, and now the FTC, to sue any website for “harmful” content. When you have Republicans calling anything LGBT “sexual exploitation” or anything about race “CRT” to successfully ban books and teachers, then they will use any justification to censor the internet. The Missouri attorney general used “mental health” successfully to ban gender-affirming care with backed up research. Suicide rates will skyrocket for marginalized youth with this bill restricting content. Multiple experts agree this bill pushes age verification, even with the new language. KOSA hands more private data of children to third party companies. Furthermore, updated language threatens encryption the same way the Earn It Act does. How is this protecting children’s privacy? KOSA actively harms kids. Do NOT support this bill. Thank you.

Tell them you'll vote for your reps if they vote no on KOSA,anything goes. But most importantly it's crucial that KOSA is not being brought at all for any vote. Also,to note, Biden supports KOSA: You could try asking your GOP rep why they would support a bill that has Biden's support,and that he could use it to his advantage somehow (we know GOP does not like Biden,so it should be utilized somehow). We need to ensure the bill doesnt pass at all.

Last but not least: COME JOIN OUR ANTI KOSA SERVER ! we organize to help fight against bad Internet bills ! https://discord.gg/pwTSXZMxnH