Don't fall for the latest changes to the dangerous Kids Online Safety Act
eff.org
eff.org
> Adults in any of these groups who are unwilling to share their identities will find themselves shunted onto a second-class internet alongside the young people who have been denied access to this information.
This is what I wish people would understand. It doesn't just protect kids from dangerous information. It flips the assumption of age on it's head.
You're no longer assumed to be an adult on the internet, you're assumed to be a child. If you want to be treated as an adult, you have to "show" your ID, and this is not a cashier selling beer at the gas station. This will include the least trustworthy data-hoarding internet marketers who don't give a damn about your privacy. They will view your ID verification as data that can be used for marketing campaigns and sold to other people. They will probably be glad if this law passes because of the cover it gives them to invade your privacy even more.
Also:
> Nothing in this title, including a 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
So it literally says nothing in the title should be construed as suggesting sites need to check ID.
If you run a website and you're liable if a child accesses content that the gov says children shouldn't be able to access, do you post it anyway? or do you assume everybody is a child unless they show you some ID?
Or asked a different way, suppose you run a gas station and you sell beer. The law will punish you tremendously if you sell alcohol to a minor. Do you assume everybody is old enough to buy beer since they were able to gain access to a vehicle (which you must be an adult to legally own) and sell to whoever, or do you ask to see people's ID?
While I understand a computer is just as tool, it does seem weird that we just gloss over the fact that websites just hand porn to children and don't worry about it, but if you did it on the street you would get run out of town at best and arrested at worst.
1. Pass an act that requires verification for sexual content not appropriate for kids.
2. Define everything relating to the LGBT as sexual content.
3. Define ideas they don't like as too dangerous to expose to children.
4. Argue that this isn't an ban because the content is technically accessible.
Like they're not even bothering to hide it anymore.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/sena...
https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2021/7/why-is-critical-race...
Unless there's some part of the amendment I'm missing they haven't really done anything to mitigate this despite the blogspam that says otherwise. Removing the ability of states to decide what isn't age appropriate isn't nothing but it's not like leaving it to the federal government is doing meaningfully better. With the state control one can at least move to a blue state, putting it in the hands of the FTC means it's basically at the whim of $current_president.
Just to be crystal-clear, this particular step is not so much a prediction as it is a recollection. While the intensity has been tapering off for decades at an agonizingly slow rate, the entire history of Internet content filtering is deeply intertwined with the ideological bugbears of the American religious right. Even Cloudflare in A.D. 2020 botched the "1.1.1.1 for Families" launch by accidentally pulling the homophobic flavor of its upstream vendor's "adult content" database [1]. Unless you've been paying close attention for the past ~30 years, the rot runs deeper than you can imagine.
[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-mistake-that-caused-1-1-1-3-...
As an adult now, I don't really care, but just like Ive grown to dislike people that sleep around casually (even though I was one of them from 18-35), I also don't really like the idea of gay hookup culture. Since that seems a lot more popular in the male gay community (I don't know about women), I also generalize that I don't like the popular gay culture either. If liberals/leftists can talk constantly how they don't like trump supporters or conservatives, and even talk down their intelligence levels, I don't see why I'm not allowed to not like someone who believes and does things I don't like.
Calling people like me homophobic doesn't really resonate to me and basically makes me ignore anything beyond that.
I am reading though the bill right now and do not have quite the same takeaway that the EFF is promoting. Sec 102 specifically exempts platforms from limiting "any minor from deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content". This seems to neuter a lot of the pushback that the bill will prevent youth from searching for sexual health, minority status, LGBTQ+ information.
I think a lot of platforms are upset that they won't be able to push this type of content algorithmically (see the prevalence of "mental-health-tok", "5 signs that you have ADHD" videos) but I am *very* skeptical that this type of content is healthy for anyone. I think it drives a ton of engagement which large platforms don't want to lose.
My main beef with KOSA is that a bunch of the meat of the rules and enforcement (Sec 106 - Sec 109) is completely punted on. Lots of "Not later than 18 months after the enactment of this act" the FTC will "issue guidance" or create rules for various things. It seems like Congress doesn't quite know what they want to regulate, but they want someone (who isn't them) to do so.
Once Chevron deference is dead, all it will take is an act of Congress to enshrine this specific interpretation of the law. Handing FTC the authority to enforce is a fig leaf designed to fool the center-right.
This is a great idea which is outside the technical reach of most American parents.
What's the case for the First Amendment not allowing KOSA?
What makes KOSA different from constitutional obscenity/indecency laws?
Thanks for helping me understand.
Courts
> These sorts of laws spit in the face of the First Amendment
FWIW, the same people who created and passed the First Amendment also created and passed obscenity laws.