No-one here has time to read Senate Bills, there are thousands of them. If there is a credible story then it will be covered by a credible media source, and we can then read about it and discuss it.

I'm confused ; I could buy the first request, but now the cheese has inexplicably moved? Request was for credible source. Somebody provided text to actual bill. That is the canonical credible source - no interpretation, bait, translation, summary or slant. What is your expectation in terms of "credible source" then - keep trying until they guess your preferred news source?

A credible media source I said. That's how the world works. The petabytes of daily information get filtered for us by trustworthy media intermediaries. No one wants to read a thousand government documents, or visit populist clickbait websites.

You don't need to read thousands of government documents. You can read one. And then discuss it.

I think at some point, if you're presented a media article, and if on demand you're then presented the original source, if you feel the need to have it filtered through a particular funnel, Google can be your friend.

Alternatively it is possible (if not likely) your preferred outlets may not, for various reasons, cover this story. So maybe it doesn't exist! As you say, that's how the world works ;-)

A senator and two members of the house felt that a minority class of people should have their children removed from them, and invested the time to draft legislation and introduce it to both the house and senate simultaneously.

That, all by itself, is notable. We don't want to wait until this passes to start discussing it. The fact that it came up at all is the well past the point where we should be talking about it.

You are describing yourself as a social activist. That's fine. But hackernews is a high-quality discussion forum so populist activist techniques won't work here. Perhaps you could try on websites such as Reddit or TikTok instead? Or wait until a credible media source is discussing it, and try reposting.

What does that mean?

Are we only allowed to discuss topics that "credible media sources" already discuss? I was raising the concern for discussion here after posting a source link.

You seem to unwilling to actually engage in discussion about a notable change in American politics?

If this isn't the problem with the internet, I don't know what is.

"No no, I don't want the primary source unfiltered, I want my preferred bias already added into the discussion, so I can know how to feel about it."

The above is how this statement reads to me after your first request.