"Democrats and Republicans in Congress have struck a deal on a bill they say will help keep children and teens safe online. The KIDS Act could pass on the House floor as soon as next week; if enacted, it would fundamentally change the way everyone — not just kids — accesses the internet.

At stake is your ability to use many social media platforms without revealing your identity. 

That’s because the KIDS Act at least strongly incentivizes — and, for some services, outright requires — age verification. Many platforms will turn to age verification to avoid potential liability under the law. Companies like X, video-sharing services like Vimeo, and others with a history of users’ populating social feeds with edgy content may be required to verify users’ ages because they host a certain amount of content deemed “sexual material harmful to minors,” a term that the KIDS Act defines broadly. 

That’s a big problem for people who need to be able to use the internet anonymously, since, as Taylor Lorenz has previously written about in The Intercept, “there’s no way to reliably verify someone’s age without verifying who they are.” 

Threats to online anonymity harm everyone, but one group is often overlooked: journalists and the sources who talk to them. Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources. [...]

indian residential school survivors society (BC)

toronto indigenous harm reduction (ON)

native women's resource centre of toronto (ON)

water first (nationwide)

indspire (nationwide)

miskanawah (AB)

ma mawi wi chi itata centre (MB)

manitoba indigenous cultural education centre (MB)

native women's shelter of montreal (QC)

native friendship centre of montreal (QC)

first light (NL)

“Is it gay or is it misogynistic?”

They don’t understand.

I explain that often times women and girls are excluded from stories in favor of a predominantly male cast because the author doesn’t value female narrative contributions nor considers them worthy of character development in their own rights independent of the men, so the result isn’t uplifting male relationships with romantic intentions, but simply sexist writing in its most basic form.

They assure me it’s a good story.

Look inside.