Tessera
Folgen

Wankaworm (commissions are so open)

@wankaworm.bsky.social

Your second favorite disgusting Worm! I'm 35! No minors here. No antis here. No conservatives or puritans here. I hurt fictional men! https://ko-fi.com/wankaworm https://wormwoodplays.itch.io/ https://archiveofourown.org/users/whatsanapocalae

6794 Posts624 Follower386 Folgt
Azel@azeldraws.bsky.social · 7mo ago

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, Scéal Faoladh θ∆@amras.me · 7mo ago

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!