Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks United States Politics

Senate Passes the Kids Online Safety Act (theverge.com) 84

Posted by BeauHD from the decades-in-the-making dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (also known as COPPA 2.0), the first major internet bills meant to protect children to reach that milestone in two decades. A legislative vehicle that included both KOSA and COPPA 2.0 passed 91-3. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called it "a momentous day" in a speech ahead of the vote, saying that "the Senate keeps its promise to every parent who's lost a child because of the risks of social media." He called for the House to pass the bills "as soon as they can."

KOSA is a landmark piece of legislation that a persistent group of parent advocates played a key role in pushing forward -- meeting with lawmakers, showing up at hearings with tech CEOs, and bringing along photos of their children, who, in many cases, died by suicide after experiencing cyberbullying or other harms from social media. These parents say that a bill like KOSA could have saved their own children from suffering and hope it will do the same for other children. The bill works by creating a duty of care for online platforms that are used by minors, requiring they take "reasonable" measures in how they design their products to mitigate a list of harms, including online bullying, sexual exploitation, drug promotion, and eating disorders. It specifies that the bill doesn't prevent platforms from letting minors search for any specific content or providing resources to mitigate any of the listed harms, "including evidence-informed information and clinical resources." The legislation faces significant opposition from digital rights, free speech, and LGBTQ+ advocates who fear it could lead to censorship and privacy issues. Critics argue that the duty of care may result in aggressive content filtering and mandatory age verification, potentially blocking important educational and lifesaving content.

The bill may also face legal challenges from tech platforms citing First Amendment violations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Passes the Kids Online Safety Act More

Senate Passes the Kids Online Safety Act

Comments Filter:
  • Why not do the simple thing...at least from a legal standpoint.

    Just make social media access adult only....18 and older, just like we do for cigarettes and booze?

    Now, how to enforce it...well, let the companies get creative with that.

    Hell, they seem to have information on all humans on earth anyway, I'd think they'd know the age of everyone too already, no?

    • Just make social media access adult only

      I think that's exactly what will happen since it is much cheaper to do than try to police the content that minors will see. This will be coupled with the same, utterly useless methods that they currently use to enforce 13+ age limits where all you have to do is lie about your birthday to create an account so the net effect will be that nothing changes other than there will be people online pretending to be 18+ instead of today when some are pretending to be 13+.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        Some 18+ verification goes as far as a comprehensive facial scan. Im sure theres more to it if youre in that 16-20 age group, but I guess it knows approximately how old you are or at least definitely over 18 at a certain point. I guess if its not as obvious you then scan the same barcode on your ID/License that you have to scan to buy cough syrup, sudafed, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Creepy ( 93888 )

        I literally said with COPA there is no way to enforce something like this without creating the GREAT FIREWALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or somehow forcing American law on the internet. If I were, say, Pornhub, I'd relocate to Russia, give them 50% to support the war in Ukraine, and you'd have to break the Constitution on free speech to block my site that violated your law that doesn't apply to Russian sites.

        I'm not a consumer of these products, I just don't see how you can protect kids and not violate

      • utterly useless methods that they currently use to enforce 13+ age limits where all you have to do is lie about your birthday

        Odd that this should be so difficult, age is one of the first things social network algorithms were able nail down with near perfect reliability. Using algorithms might even be more effective than chronological age since they measure maturity by the user's interests rather than their birth-date.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

      Doesn't solve or address any actual issues. The real problem is why anyone, especially young people, flock to social media to begin with. Society has become increasingly hostile towards groups of anyone, but especially under 18s, hanging around somewhere without money being spent. You name anywhere they possibly could hang out for free, and I'll give you at least two examples of why they don't.

      • Not just not for free. But even the things I did when I was young but had money have had their prices jacked up into the stratosphere.

        When I saw Nine Inch Nails for the first time... as a teenager... I think it was $20-$30 general admission at some long-closed nightclub in the mid-1990s when Trent Reznor was at the peak of his popularity. The last time I had the opportunity to see Nine Inch Nails (I didn't), it was merely a nostalgia act playing at Outside Lands... for which I would have had to pay $250.

    • Why not do the simple thing...at least from a legal standpoint.

      Just make social media access adult only....18 and older, just like we do for cigarettes and booze?

      Now, how to enforce it...well, let the companies get creative with that.

      Hell, they seem to have information on all humans on earth anyway, I'd think they'd know the age of everyone too already, no?

      Yeah man, I for real want Slashdot, a site that looks and operates like it was built in 1994 to also be in charge of confirming my identity. They can't even get a forum to work without technical issues, they should absolutely be trusted not to fuck up verifying my age.

    • It won't help. "Social networking" should be accessible only if a certain level of overall maturity is demonstrated, and then it should never be allowed for it to be anonymous.

      However, such a policy will kill many trillions in "value", and is hard to implement with low immediate return rates, so it ain't happening :)

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • f you ban facebook because of the content people have posted, you might as well ban user content on the internet - theres NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MESSAGE BOARDS WITH PROFILE PAGES

        There is a difference in that FB and other true social media site...have targeted algorithms pushing content to individuals THEY want you to see and to "hook" you...

        Possibly, one of the contentions of the law is....if there is an algorithm pushing the content to you (that you yourself did not set up)...then it is adults only.

        I do

  • Great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @04:40PM (#64668024)

    The original Child Online Privacy Protection Act, also known as the Thou Shalt Not Compete with Disney Act, permanently disinvited children from the Internet.

    Further, it made all attempts to create wholesome entertainment and/or educational resources for them a catastrophic legal liability. Attorneys consulted for guidance and compliance advice flatly stated they had no idea how to fully comply with the law other than to abandon any attempt to market to anyone associated with children, including parents, teachers and caregivers. The consequences could be fines in confiscatory amounts that would require millions in attorney's fees and years of litigation to fight.

    The incumbents simply folded the extra costs into their eleven-figure budgets and made few efforts to comply with the law. Some experts estimate this sudden government-backed total seizure of all children's marketing cost the U.S. north of fifteen million jobs and a market in excess of $200 billion over 25 years.

    It got so bad that the head of the Federal Trade Commission looked directly into a camera on YouTube and personally threatened anyone running a channel that might accidentally have viewers under 13 with multiple five-figure fines. The recommendation was to alter the content of your videos if necessary to avoid drawing the attention of the FTC and their authority to levy those $40,000 fines. Thousands of channels went dark the same week. Those that remained were reminded with every upload that the FTC is watching.

    And it worked. With the exception of a few notable examples, the entire market of characters and products for children including toys, games, books, comics, interactive, apparel, plush, web, animation, TV and video has been swept into history. There is nothing left except a handful of mobile games and Disney.

    The entirety of American culture as it relates to children is gone.

    That's what the government has done.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheStatsMan ( 1763322 )

      I can only assume that you don't have kids, because the "competition with Disney" is vast. You could raise a child and never watch a Disney product, such is the diversity of content available for consumption.

      The only reason to raise this ridiculous claim is because Disney is the conservative boogeyman.

      >the entire market of characters and products for children including toys, games, books, comics, interactive, apparel, plush, web, animation, TV and video has been swept into history. There is nothing left

      • The only reason to raise this ridiculous claim is because Disney is the conservative boogeyman

        With the way disney treats their artists and park workers, and how predatory their pricing models are, I'm honestly surprised they're not the liberal boogeyman also.

      • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @05:18PM (#64668124)

        I can only assume that you don't have kids, because the "competition with Disney" is vast.

        I worked for Disney. Twice. I was also a marketing consultant for a world-famous animated television series, so I know everything I need to know about this topic whether I have children of my own or not.

        You could raise a child and never watch a Disney product, such is the diversity of content available for consumption.

        There are a few notable examples of non-Disney characters, largely on YouTube. Aside from those minimal examples, there is nothing that even remotely compares to what we had 40 years ago.

        The only reason to raise this ridiculous claim is because Disney is the conservative boogeyman.

        In the Iger era, Disney destroys everything it touches. I've written books on this subject. If you defend Disney your credibility is gone.

        This has to be satire, or written by someone who is childless and just has no fucking clue about anything.

        Settle down, Tubby. Google "list the most popular original animated characters developed in the last ten years" (without quotes) Every result is either an all-time list or uses characters developed a quarter-century ago (or earlier)

        There's nothing.

        What's the most popular doll marketed in the last ten years based on original IP? Nothing.

        Is there any toy sold in the last ten years that remotely compares to Hot Wheels? Or Lego? Or Frisbees? Or Slinky? NERF? GI Joe? She-Ra? Take any year from 1965 to 1995. There's NOTHING that compares, even if we assume any original toy has been invented in the U.S. in the last ten years, which I seriously doubt.

        You're wrong. Next time make an effort to learn the subject matter before you start running your mouth.

        • Thanks for your posts. I have never heard anybody suggest before that Disney was a major backer of COPPA. But being an '80's child, you're exactly right. Toys from that era were a joy, innovative, and much more diverse than today. And after reading your post, I see now and completely agree that practically everything on the toy shelf today is either Disney or a toy whose IP existed when I was a child. The only innovation in toys I see today is with STEM toys, but these toys have limited distribution an

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by The Cat ( 19816 )

            I have never heard anybody suggest before that Disney was a major backer of COPPA.

            It's the greatest thing that ever happened to Disney. It wipes out all their competitors before they even get a business plan drafted.

            and I'm struggling to see how "Don't harvest marketing data from young children online" is a direct benefit to Disney. What part of the law did Disney have influence over that was specifically for their benefit?

            Suppose you want to start a company that appeals to children in much the same way Disney does. You could hire the most prestigious law firm in the nation and not one of their attorneys will be able to tell you how to comply with the Child Online Privacy Protection Act. Any attempt to communicate with your customers makes you potentially liable for bankruptcy-generating fines

        • Settle down, Tubby. Google "list the most popular original animated characters developed in the last ten years" (without quotes) Every result is either an all-time list or uses characters developed a quarter-century ago (or earlier)

          There's nothing.

          What's the most popular doll marketed in the last ten years based on original IP? Nothing.

          Is there any toy sold in the last ten years that remotely compares to Hot Wheels? Or Lego? Or Frisbees? Or Slinky? NERF? GI Joe? She-Ra? Take any year from 1965 to 1995. There's NOTHING that compares, even if we assume any original toy has been invented in the U.S. in the last ten years, which I seriously doubt.

          Creepy isn't it? Land of the Free. Yeah, boy.

          The concentration of power is poisonous... and apparently, unstoppable. The future is bleak. I know, let's create a LOT of children! (yeah, no)

        • >list the most popular original animated characters developed in the last ten years

          So because Disney has the most popular characters, this means there are *no other characters?!* Have you not seen how many shows exist on Netflix, Amazon Prime (PBS), and as you mentioned, YouTube? There are thousands. You're mad that the toys they make aren't up to your standards? Actually a funny point, but not something I would consider relevant to the discussion.

          >learn the subject matter

          Appeal to authority when

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by The Cat ( 19816 )

            So because Disney has the most popular characters, this means there are *no other characters?!

            The fact I asked you to list them and you didn't means there are no other characters.

            You're mad that the toys they make aren't up to your standards?

            There are no toys. There are no toy stores. There are no new characters to license for toys. There are no new authors to write characters to license for toys.

            Try this: name one children's author with even a fraction of the success of J.K. Rowling cultivated by Scholastic since Deathly Hallows was released.

            Answer: There isn't one.

            Scholastic has an unlimited marketing budget and the largest retail network on Earth. And they

            • >The fact I asked you to list them and you didn't means there are no other characters.

              How can anyone argue with logic such as this? I don't have to perform for you. This information is readily available for anyone who cares.

              >There are no toy stores.

              I live in a suburb of 20-30k people that has a toy store in the local outdoor mall. There are even more toy stores within a 30-45 minute drive into the nearest city. This is just an absurd false statement.

              >name one children's author with even a fract

      • > the "competition with Disney" is vast. You could raise
        > a child and never watch a Disney product

        Well... you say that. But have you considered all of the Disney properties that are not actually branded as Disney? Star Wars alone is so ubiquitous that there are starving kids in Africa who know who Luke Skywalker is. Then there's all of ABC and, except for their "news" outlets, FOX. Hell, even the toxic meathead community is probably and unknowingly consuming a lot of Disney product when they watc

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)

      by subreality ( 157447 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @05:54PM (#64668226)

      This is a great example of "regulatory capture". The regulations are a barrier for anyone new to enter the market, but they're just a cost of doing business for the incumbents. It's a significant factor in how powerful corporations have taken control of large swaths of our society over the past century.

  • Who in their right mind would subject kids to society today?

  • Watch the riders (Score:3)

    by akw0088 ( 7073305 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @04:51PM (#64668060)
    Often times the bills for firefighters, teachers, the welfare of warm fuzzy bears, contain pretty controversial riders attached which are the true payload often ignored and dismissed as "You dont support firefighters!?"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      Yea theres been some real shit in the name of “its for the children”. Too bad the line-item veto did not last long.

  • ...what are the odds that it's a good idea?

  • ANY legislation that has a " think of the children " vibe or theme to it is rarely good legislation.

    In the end, it usually ends up causing far more collateral damage than what was envisioned.

    • ANY legislation that has a " think of the children " vibe or theme to it is rarely good legislation.

      In the end, it usually ends up causing far more collateral damage than what was envisioned.

      Let me fix that for you:

      ANY legislation that has a "think of the children" vibe or theme to it is rarely good legislation.

      In the end, it usually ends up causing exactly as much damage to the roots of society on the whole as the crafters of the legislation hoped as they drafted it, most likely resulting in more government control over all people's lives for no actual benefit to society at large.

  • The Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)

    I'd have paid them money to call it the Kids Online Act for Safety (KAOS).

    (Most of you probably aren't old enough to get it)

  • But that'd be to simple and clear. And put any problems on THEM to fix.

    • What if I or anyone else doesn't want my real name linked to everything I do and say online? What about privacy?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Creepy ( 93888 )

        You can't have an anonymous name or alias on a commercial web site - the CFAA of 1986 makes that a felony (based on ATM law) and borrows punishment from the Espionage Act of 1917. I just committed a felony by posting this, punishable by up to 30 years in jail. Would say I was joking, but Aaron Swartz (a reddit founder also caught up in this law that committed suicide) would not be laughing.

        • Then every person in the U.S. who uses Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or any other 'social media' site is a criminal, because only fools use their real name online. Therefore I call bullshit on what you just said.

  • Wonder how much better we'd all feel if 100% of us could get effective mental health treatment? Meaning both medications (psychiatrists) AND a neutral 3rd party to talk with regularly (therapy). Yes, I mean homeless and everyone... since they probably need more help than most.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's too late, mental illness has been fully normalized now. Didn't you see the opening to the Paris Olympics?

    • Wonder how much better we'd all feel if 100% of us could get effective mental health treatment? Meaning both medications (psychiatrists) AND a neutral 3rd party to talk with regularly (therapy).

      With the exception of schizophrenia and a couple of problems related to the D2 receptor, most mental health treatment is not terribly effective, and is usually advised by profits.

      For instance, when most SSRIs were still under patent, everything was caused by a serotonin deficiency a/k/a "chemical imbalance". Everyt

      • If I were asleep, I could dream.
        If I were afraid, I could hide.
        And if I go insane,
        Please don't put your wires in my brain!

  • Just more 'net nanny' legislation. The affected companies will pay lip-service to it, make some token changes, and in the end it will do precisely nothing.

    You want your kids to not be negatively affected by social media? Keep them off it entirely. Itr's bad enough to deal with when you're an adult, I can't even imagine how much of a hellish nightmare it must be to be under 18 and dealing with this shit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Not true. It will give the politics what they desire most: The appearance that they are doing something.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Make that Catholic ones and you do not even have to pay the priests to take care of your kids! Although I hear they are mostly into boys. Are other Christians more into gender equality?

  • That is the POINT (Score:3)

    by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 30, 2024 @06:51PM (#64668382) Homepage

    The legislation faces significant opposition from digital rights, free speech, and LGBTQ+ advocates who fear it could lead to censorship and privacy issues. Critics argue that the duty of care may result in aggressive content filtering and mandatory age verification, potentially blocking important educational and lifesaving content.

    This was the goal of the Communications Decency Act* (aka section 230): to give protection to sites in order to encourage them to filter "objectionable content" without worry if they screwed up along the way. It had the unintended consequences of providing too much freedom online. This new act is intended to correct/restrict that freedom.

    *According to the authors of the law: representatives Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)

    • No. Section 230 was to indemnify the websites (hosts) from objectional content posted by their users. The thing about them censoring (or not) has more to do with their First Amendment rights (and if those "Corporations" should have them.) I for one think the censorship that has happened on social media is bad, but still in the rights of the site owner(s) as they are private entities.

      When it's all said and done, I think ending "Corporate Personhood" would go a long way towards solving a lot of society's c

  • I wonder what the poison in it is for everyday citizens. When ever either/or both house(s) of congress move together. It just means the elites on both side bought just what they wanted and everyday citizens get the shaft.

  • I don't know if this law is a genuine attempt to deal with problems, but if it is, it's extremely misguided. The fact is, people are often mean to each other, this has been the case for as long as humans existed and will be the case as long as our species continues to exist, however long that turns out to be. Kids and young adults are certainly no exception. One of the basic life skills you have to learn as a human is how to deal with assholes.

    One of the worst things you can do to young people is to make th

  • ... Ms. Lords. Your ID appearsto be in order.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close