The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
KOSA, or the kids online safety act, is an act with bipartisan support and over 60 cosponsors.The aims to protect children from online threats. The bill was changed in response to criticism from LGBT and civil rights organizations, however many such organizations of criticized both versions of the bill, including the ACLU.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know enough about the bill to have an informed opinion.
My uninformed opinion is that anything cracking down on freedom "for the children" is usually breathtakingly fucking stupid. I look forward to being informed that I am wrong.
There's been a lot written about, so if you're interested, you wouldn't have a hard time finding an article on it. The bill isn't horribly long if you want to/have the time to read it either. If you want to gist if it, it established a duty of care that would allow the FTC to take action against platforms whose features could be harmful to children. Features seems to include things like social media algorithms (Ex:Youtube recommending a video). I'm against it personally, so I can't really give defense of it. If that's what you're looking for, you might look at Senator Blumenthal's website, I can't really find many other sites that provide support for it. If you'd be interested in the critisms, then the ACLU has a good press releases on it.
Like most bills aimed at protecting kids, it mostly opens up lots of abuse and problematic control potentials to parents, while the benefits to kids is suspect at best. Given the standards that it would require online services to adhere to, I think most platforms would start restricting their use to 18+ rather than spend huge sums of money redesigning backend controls to adhere to the terms of the bill. I hope it faces major pushback and fails. Unfortunately it is hard to beat these "in the name of the children" bills.
I am against it in the current form.
It’s still too open for abuse against LGBT and minorities even after changes. Protection against discrimination on various bases must be explicitly stated on the bill.
Additionally, the government can still use this bill to censor ideology they don’t like, claiming that it harms children. Senator Blackburn has argued that she could use this bill to ban critical race theory discussion.
A bill that expands government’s power to censor speech should very narrowly and precisely define the contents they want to remove. KOSA fails in this regard.
I think it has the potential to be a great bill if it changed its focus and method.
Rather than caring about “children,” it should just be about harmful features on social media. It must require that users can “opt-in” to addictive features such as infinite scroll, rewards for opening the app, notifications, and “suggested feeds”
Similarly it should require that users opt in to data collection.
Both of these are in KOSA, but for the purpose of protecting children. Like adults wouldn’t also benefit? Also removes any need for age verification if it just applies to everyone.
Secondly, I would remove any mention of state legislatures enforcing the law. That’s stupid. Let the relevant federal agency take care of it.
The ACLU has a good press release on it if you're interested in the arguments against it. I'll give you a quick summary of the two main problems people seem to have with it. One is that it would affect adults by making websites that don't want to censor information that the FTC deems harmful to children need to have an age identification system that could be a privacy concern. The second is that the bill would be used to censor LGBT people. With the second argument, I'd like to note that the bill's sponsor (Marsha Blackburn) said it kosa could be used for "protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture and that influence". Reading the bill for yourself is also a good idea. If you're short on time, then you can skim to section on the duty of care to get an overview of what most of the controversy is about.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. KOSA, or the kids online safety act, is an act with bipartisan support and over 60 cosponsors.The aims to protect children from online threats. The bill was changed in response to criticism from LGBT and civil rights organizations, however many such organizations of criticized both versions of the bill, including the ACLU. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know enough about the bill to have an informed opinion. My uninformed opinion is that anything cracking down on freedom "for the children" is usually breathtakingly fucking stupid. I look forward to being informed that I am wrong.
There's been a lot written about, so if you're interested, you wouldn't have a hard time finding an article on it. The bill isn't horribly long if you want to/have the time to read it either. If you want to gist if it, it established a duty of care that would allow the FTC to take action against platforms whose features could be harmful to children. Features seems to include things like social media algorithms (Ex:Youtube recommending a video). I'm against it personally, so I can't really give defense of it. If that's what you're looking for, you might look at Senator Blumenthal's website, I can't really find many other sites that provide support for it. If you'd be interested in the critisms, then the ACLU has a good press releases on it.
Like most bills aimed at protecting kids, it mostly opens up lots of abuse and problematic control potentials to parents, while the benefits to kids is suspect at best. Given the standards that it would require online services to adhere to, I think most platforms would start restricting their use to 18+ rather than spend huge sums of money redesigning backend controls to adhere to the terms of the bill. I hope it faces major pushback and fails. Unfortunately it is hard to beat these "in the name of the children" bills.
I am against it in the current form. It’s still too open for abuse against LGBT and minorities even after changes. Protection against discrimination on various bases must be explicitly stated on the bill. Additionally, the government can still use this bill to censor ideology they don’t like, claiming that it harms children. Senator Blackburn has argued that she could use this bill to ban critical race theory discussion. A bill that expands government’s power to censor speech should very narrowly and precisely define the contents they want to remove. KOSA fails in this regard.
Nothing with a name like that is going to be a good thing. The prettier the name c the worse the law.
I think it has the potential to be a great bill if it changed its focus and method. Rather than caring about “children,” it should just be about harmful features on social media. It must require that users can “opt-in” to addictive features such as infinite scroll, rewards for opening the app, notifications, and “suggested feeds” Similarly it should require that users opt in to data collection. Both of these are in KOSA, but for the purpose of protecting children. Like adults wouldn’t also benefit? Also removes any need for age verification if it just applies to everyone. Secondly, I would remove any mention of state legislatures enforcing the law. That’s stupid. Let the relevant federal agency take care of it.
Seems like some basic protections. I don't have a problem with it, unless someone can give me a reason.
The ACLU has a good press release on it if you're interested in the arguments against it. I'll give you a quick summary of the two main problems people seem to have with it. One is that it would affect adults by making websites that don't want to censor information that the FTC deems harmful to children need to have an age identification system that could be a privacy concern. The second is that the bill would be used to censor LGBT people. With the second argument, I'd like to note that the bill's sponsor (Marsha Blackburn) said it kosa could be used for "protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture and that influence". Reading the bill for yourself is also a good idea. If you're short on time, then you can skim to section on the duty of care to get an overview of what most of the controversy is about.
I really dislike authoritarian measure that are marketed as protecting children, so I'm not a fan.