Is the 'Kids Online Safety Act' Losing Momentum? (theguardian.com) 40
America's Senate "overwhelmingly passed major online safety reforms to protect children on social media," reports the Guardian.
"But with ongoing pushback from the tech industry and freedom of speech organizations, the legislation faces an uncertain future in the House." "It's a terrible idea to let politicians and bureaucrats decide what people should read and view online," freedom of speech group the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of the Senate's passage of Kosa... Advocates of Kosa reject these critiques, noting the bill has been revised to address many of those concerns — including shifting enforcement from attorneys general to the federal trade commission and focusing the "duty of care" provisions on product design features of the site or app rather than content specifically. A number of major LGBTQ+ groups dropped their opposition to the legislation following these changes, including the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the Trevor Project.
After passing the Senate this week, the bill has now moved onto the House, which is on a six-week summer recess until September. Proponents are now directing their efforts towards House legislators to turn the bill into law. Joe Biden has indicated he would sign it if it passes. In a statement Tuesday encouraging the House to pass the legislation, the US president said: "We need action by Congress to protect our kids online and hold big tech accountable for the national experiment they are running on our children for profit...."
House speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has expressed support for moving forward on Kosa and passing legislation this Congress, but it's unclear if he will bring the bill up in the House immediately. Some experts say the bill is unlikely to be passed in the House in the form passed by the Senate. "Given the concerns about potential censorship and the possibility of minors' lacking access to vital information, pausing KOSA makes eminent sense," said Gautam Hans, associate clinical professor of law and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell Law School. He added that the House may put forward its own similar legislation instead, or modify KOSA to further address some of these concerns.
The political news site Punchbowl News also noted this potentially significant quote: A House GOP leadership aide told us this about KOSA: "We've heard concerns across our Conference and the Senate bill cannot be brought up in its current form."
TechDirt argues that "Senator Rand Paul's really excellent letter laying out the reasons he couldn't support the bill may have had an impact."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike for sharing the news.
"But with ongoing pushback from the tech industry and freedom of speech organizations, the legislation faces an uncertain future in the House." "It's a terrible idea to let politicians and bureaucrats decide what people should read and view online," freedom of speech group the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of the Senate's passage of Kosa... Advocates of Kosa reject these critiques, noting the bill has been revised to address many of those concerns — including shifting enforcement from attorneys general to the federal trade commission and focusing the "duty of care" provisions on product design features of the site or app rather than content specifically. A number of major LGBTQ+ groups dropped their opposition to the legislation following these changes, including the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the Trevor Project.
After passing the Senate this week, the bill has now moved onto the House, which is on a six-week summer recess until September. Proponents are now directing their efforts towards House legislators to turn the bill into law. Joe Biden has indicated he would sign it if it passes. In a statement Tuesday encouraging the House to pass the legislation, the US president said: "We need action by Congress to protect our kids online and hold big tech accountable for the national experiment they are running on our children for profit...."
House speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has expressed support for moving forward on Kosa and passing legislation this Congress, but it's unclear if he will bring the bill up in the House immediately. Some experts say the bill is unlikely to be passed in the House in the form passed by the Senate. "Given the concerns about potential censorship and the possibility of minors' lacking access to vital information, pausing KOSA makes eminent sense," said Gautam Hans, associate clinical professor of law and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell Law School. He added that the House may put forward its own similar legislation instead, or modify KOSA to further address some of these concerns.
The political news site Punchbowl News also noted this potentially significant quote: A House GOP leadership aide told us this about KOSA: "We've heard concerns across our Conference and the Senate bill cannot be brought up in its current form."
TechDirt argues that "Senator Rand Paul's really excellent letter laying out the reasons he couldn't support the bill may have had an impact."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike for sharing the news.
Well, maybe the "spy on everybody" act... (Score:5, Insightful)
... needs better camouflage. These people have lied about their actual goals a bit too often now.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh you have no idea.
Caught an interview with the legislator in Kentucky that sponsored age verification law for porn sites, and he admits on camera at least one of the intents was to drive porn from the state. That is clearly an end-around the first amendment, nevermind the principle of least infringement.
The whoring out of children in the name of other interest is beyond repugnant. A pox upon them.
Nobody officially under age 13 (Score:1)
It is the same situation as COPPA and other laws: it applies only to children under age 13.
Just like social media, like video game accounts, like forums, like YouTube and Tictok, children are not allowed. If the child lies about their age there is very little the company can do about it.
The new bill adds no real consequences for age violations, and still requires a year of research to develop industry standards. They are the same standards for children on social media and video apps. So basically it will
Re: (Score:2)
It is the same situation as COPPA and other laws: it applies only to children under age 13. Minor in this case is anyone under the age of 17. Read the Bill.
Re:Nobody officially under age 13 (Score:5, Insightful)
Minor in this case is anyone under the age of 17. Read the Bill.
this one? [congress.gov] I have. Specifically this definition: (1) CHILD.—The term “child” means an individual who is under the age of 13. and (9) MINOR.—The term “minor” means an individual who is under the age of 17.
The bill has different requirements for each. Disclosure, consent and certain defaults apply to "the child".
The ability for users to communicate with others, time limits, and other default settings apply to "the minor".
"Minors" get notice, but "the child" require parental action and verification.
Enforcement, section 110, is effectively toothless, part of the reason industry doesn't particularly care. Because the law specifically requires Nothing in this title, including determination described in subsection (b), shall be construed to require (1) the affirmative collection of any personal data with respect to the age of users that a covered platform is not already collecting in the normal course of business; or (2) a covered platform to implement an age gating or age verification functionality. the same scenario as a kid checking a box saying "I'm totally old enough to use this platform" applies.
Re: (Score:2)
If the child lies about their age there is very little the company can do about it.
How about the child's guardian ensures the child's safety. No bill can protect the child if the child's guardian doesn't. What is a 13 year old doing on the Internet without adult supervision? This is more about peoples feelings and forcing their will on others while pretending they are doing something about the problem. This law does absolutely nothing to protect the children. It just allows you to point the finger when something goes wrong.
So basically it will be a drop down where they scroll the year down to 1980s or farther and that's all the kid and the company needs for "verification".
So why are we wasting time passing this legislation? Because it's
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Fauci really did a number on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fauci really did a number on you.
What does that even mean, lol?
Well, other than that we found this guy: More Than Half of Americans Think the First Amendment Provides Too Many Rights [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's what I thought. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance!
Oh hellvins no, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Parents might have to also work, you know for money and rent.
The world is not their babysitter.
Eh maybe we should just extend that logic to companies and remove both limited liability protection from shareholders and the entire concept of corporate veil.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of parents are pretty busy right now working 2 jobs each in order to put some macaroni & cheese on the table. A full time parent in the home hasn't been a thing since the 90s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Universal health care and legalized weed. Cough it up, you greedy fucks!
More lies. Black-market weed sells far better than legal weed in my ultra-liberal shithole of a state because you cunts don't want to pay taxes..
We've given power to ourselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile (Score:2)
Since everyone suddenly seems concerned about the First Amendment implications of KOSA, how about we turn the clock back 25 years and examine the same implications for the Thou Shalt Not Compete with Disney Act?
A short time ago, the head of the Federal Trade Commission looked directly into a camera and threatened millions of Americans with confiscatory fines based on the CONTENT of the videos they were making for YouTube, and nothing else.
Thousands of legitimate and popular channels went dark the next day a
Does Momentum Matter? (Score:1)
Momentum doesn't really matter when the Supreme Court justices makes decisions based on donations and imaginary superheroes from a couple of thousand years ago. Just saying.
"Think of the children" (Score:4, Insightful)
> "We need action by Congress to protect our kids online"
No, we need *PARENTS* and their agents to protect kids from 'online'. Kids should not use or have access to unrestricted internet devices, period. We do NOT need the complete destruction of anonymity and lots of restrictions placed on all adults.
If you/we insist on "doing something", then help incentivize the design of mobile devices with much better PARENTAL controls that kids can use safely. Where parents can easily place time/place/duration restrictions, select which apps are installed (with guidance), which contacts are allowed communication, and have whitelists for approved sites. Along with meaningful security.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it say "must be accompanied by an adult"? (Score:2)
If not, it's probably some power grab in the name of the children, so essentially child abuse.
the safest solution (Score:5, Interesting)
The safest solution is to not let kids on most of the Internet. Watching YouTube, instagram, and shit for dozens of hours every week is provably bad for children emotionally.
The trouble is we've already adapted to doing everything online, including meeting other people. It would take a herculean effort to force all children offline without socially isolating them.
(sorry, I don't have any solutions. I'm just here to point out where we screwed up)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm militant about kids safety (Score:4, Informative)
...but writing vague laws "around" first amendment issues isn't the way to keep kids safe online.
Ultimately it comes down to parents. In 2024 this sounds heretical but...maybe don't let your kids on the internet until they can really handle it? And then with close supervision and constant overwatch.
Yes, this will cut into the time you waste posting political shit on social media, or browsing for Kim Kardashian's latest sex advice but you know, maybe your kids are more important than your social engagement.
Realistically impossible (Score:2)
I don't see any way of genuinely verifying age online that couldn't be very easily circumvented. Just about the only thing that could maybe sort of work would be giving your social security number in combination with giving the website access to your webcam / phone camera feed for long enough to verify your face (against your stored passport photo, probably). That would be such an obscene Orwellian privacy violation in addition to being extremely annoying and subject to completely adult people being denied
Better idea.... (Score:2)
Parents should start PARENTING instead of these kinds of nonsense laws,,,,,
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is you can try to do everything possible to protect your kids at home but the second they go to school all bets are off. My child in the 6th grade was exposed to pornhub in the cafeteria when another student pulled it up on his phone. The volume of crap accessed on the bus is so bad I would never recommend that a child take it anymore.
Throw on top of that the social pressure from other students to create social media accounts, and without a collective effort, it is nearly impossible for parents
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can educate them as best as possible, but many kids still make bad choices. How many kids in the '80 and '90 were educated about smoking but still tried it because someone at school at cigarettes? How many were educated about STDs and condom use and still chose not to use one?
It also isn't necessarily an issue of "sneak it behind you back." You are correct given my example with social media accounts, but there are other examples that don't require sneaking. I know our local middle school principle and
Just like reasonable gun regulations (Score:2)
This is just like getting gun regulations passed. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that the problem is that these platforms are completely unregulated, the corporate interests are going to kill any regulation bill no matter how minor.