Hacker News Reader

Comment by averysmallbird | Hacker News Reader

I am the staffer who cowrote this bill and I appreciate your comment and understanding of it.

Thanks. I'd appreciate your thoughts on sverona's comment if you're able to share. (Not the particular scenario, but the general concern that KOSA could be weaponized by anti-LGBTQ AGs.)

Your read is correct. The duty of care was written, and further rewritten, to be narrowly applied to specific clinically-diagnosable harms and remedies. Adding to the point about the rule of construction, the lack of an exemption to Section 230 is meaningful in this regard.

You seem to be referring to Section 3(a)(1), which requires websites to "prevent and mitigate" the following for people under 18:

> (1) Consistent with evidence-informed medical information, the following mental health disorders: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/140...

Can you please explain how you expect websites to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression without censoring large swaths of content that any adult would find acceptable?

Is there a reason not to tweak it slightly so that companies have to assume, unless proven otherwise, that users are children? That way it'll default for everyone here to the "privacy enhanced standards" for lack of a better term and those who want to opt out can be the ones to hand over their identity to the companies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com