u/Limp_Fig6236

So I'm in this server on Discord, and there's this guy who says he supports the KIDS Act because it's a "common sense" bill because we need to protect Kids/minors from all the bad stuff on the Internet (pornography and bad influence figures like Andrew Tate, etc).

Now I've tried explaining that the KIDS Act was inherently flawed and that it compromises our privacy rights, security, and anonymity. But he says I'm overreacting and that it doesn't violate the Constitution, and it's not about control or censorship. Etc etc.

So here's my question.

Question: Would REAL Progressives/Dem Socialists Support the "Flawed" KIDS Act? Or would they call for a carefully written Bill that actually protects minors while still protecting the rights of privacy, security, and anonymity?

July 3, 2026 - Excerpt

Donald Trump’s presidency is facing investigations and corruption charges from a key House Democrat and ex-prosecutors, involving political and personal abuses of power, which legal experts predict will get heavy scrutiny if Democrats win the House majority in the midterms.

Legal critics call the scandals dogging the president “target rich” for investigations that Democrats will have a “field day” investigating if they win the House majority. Critics cite, for instance, Trump’s damaging the rule of law by weaponizing the Department of Justice (DoJ) to exact revenge on political foes and protect himself from federal investigations, plus Trump moves to profit in radical ways from his presidency with lucrative and new cryptocurrency ventures.

Among the scandals plaguing Trump are a proposed $1.8bn “anti-weaponization” slush fund to help “Maga” allies charged with crimes and deter IRS investigations of Trump’s taxes, the weaponization of DoJ to prosecute Trump enemies and help friends, the escalating private and public costs of his prized White House ballroom, and Trump’s backing of cryptocurrency policies that coincided with his earning a whopping $1.4bn from his crypto ventures in 2025.

In the House, Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, has already spearheaded Democratic inquiries by the panel and is expected to assume the top post and lead key investigations if Democrats take back the House.

In Raskin’s eyes, the stakes are high for the rule of law and democracy.

“The political and financial corruption driving the Trump presidency is a civic emergency,” Raskin said in a statement. “Congress has a responsibility to confront all this corruption directly – to expose it and take all steps necessary to crush it as quickly as possible.

“Democrats may not yet hold the gavels, but we are already pursuing a broad range of investigations using every tool available to us. That work includes scrutiny of, and opposition to, the $1.8bn convicted criminal slush fund and super pardon for the Trumps,” which he has noted gives them total and permanent immunity from all tax and legal matters.

(continued)

People across the country are pushing for moratoriums, and electeds who approve projects are being punished

If we truly believe in the promise of a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then we must be willing to examine whether our current systems live up to that ideal. Reform is not a rejection of America’s founding principles—it is an effort to fulfill them. A stronger democracy is not one where one party wins forever. This is a deep dive into MAGA Mike Johnson's attempt to make the DSA look "dangerous." But his examples from the DSA platform are hardly a threat...

New York’s mayor will speak from George Washington’s desk hours before trump delivers a speech from Mount Rushmore.

According to Forbes and public statements from Rep. Ro Khanna, Elon Musk threatened legal action after Khanna said the dismantling of USAID may have “sentenced” 4.5 million children to death. That figure is not a confirmed current death toll. It comes from a modeling study projecting possible deaths through 2030 if major aid reductions continue.

Researchers writing in The Lancet Global Health estimated that sustained reductions in USAID-supported programs could contribute to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including roughly 4.5 million children under five. These are modeled projections based on historical relationships between aid funding and mortality, not individually verified cases caused by Musk or DOGE.

Associated Press reporting found that DOGE officials sought to halt Treasury payments to USAID while the Trump administration froze foreign assistance and moved to dismantle much of the agency. Musk and administration officials argued that USAID spending was wasteful, while supporters described it as both a humanitarian tool and an instrument of US strategic influence.

Reuters documented immediate operational consequences, including more than 60,000 metric tons of food aid stranded in warehouses and therapeutic food intended for severely malnourished children at risk of expiring. UNICEF separately warned that funding shortages could leave 2.4 million children without treatment for severe acute malnutrition.

Why It Matters:

The dispute is larger than Musk’s threatened lawsuit. It raises questions about how governments measure the human cost of abrupt spending cuts, who bears responsibility for deaths projected by statistical models, and whether weakening foreign aid ultimately reduces US influence while creating health, migration, and security risks that are more expensive to address later.

When policy decisions dismantle systems designed to prevent deaths, where should accountability begin: with documented casualties, credible projections, or the decision to accept the risk in the first place?