21 ms·

Kids Online Safety Act is still a danger to our rights online

299 points by leotravis10 3y ago

jmclnx 3y ago
I would like to know who is paying (or bribing in the US) to push these bills. Seems it is a tracking of children bill that advertising companies would love to have access to. I am sure it will be private companies that do the tracking. Also I am sure an encryption backdoor will be built into this bill if not already. As a parent, if you want your young child to be "protected", keep them off line.
- flipbrad 3y ago
  In the UK, the AVPA - age verification providers association (members include Experian) have been super active on the Online Safety Bill. Curious to know if there's a US involvement , too. The media seems to have missed this - then again, these laws are their opportunity to stick the boot into Tech, and usually have carve outs and special treatment under these laws, so they're not especially incentivised to rock the boat here.
  - jmclnx 3y ago
    Really, Experian ? That should give everyone the warm and fuzzies /s I am sure they are involved in the US with this. In anycase, it is legal for Companies in the US to donate (bribe) anonymously, so I am sure it is not documented anywhere. There has been many attempts to make that illegal, but no luck so far.
  - jdp23 3y ago
    It's a very good point, I haven't seen a lot of discussion of the role of Experian et al in KOSA. In the US, it seems like it's mostly being driven by "child-safety" orgs, some of whom are well-intentioned but just don't understand the downsides, some of whom are anti-LGBTQ and appreciate the downsides. But others may well be active behind the scenes.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  I haven't read the bill, but my first thought is that there's always going to be some threat to children, so any time you want to play pork barrel politics, you can trot out some nebulous child-safety bill and append riders to that. Second thought is that this isn't about private interests (though it's possible). Big Tech moves and grows faster than the government. Arbitrary requirements are one way to papercut a larger entity into submission, like FOSTA/SESTA or 2257-- we'll give ourselves a way to take you down for something. Case in point: > The bill holds platforms liable if their designs and services do not “prevent and mitigate” a list of societal ills: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, physical violence, online bullying and harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and suicidal behaviors. Additionally, platforms would be responsible for patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors. Platforms would be responsible for preventing and mitigating anxiety. Platforms are prohibited from doing anything to incentivize repeat business. This is Obscenity 2.0.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    If large platforms were required to interoperate and provide complete open APIs, that would break down their network effect lock-in and ad-based double-sided business model and put us users in power to vote with our feet and wallets to make them do all those things we value. That’s what we should be fighting for: to let market forces do their job properly. However, existing Big Social would rather prefer that law regulated everything about them—it increases the barrier to entry for honest competitors while Facebooks of this world have enough people and money to throw at those things.
  - commoner 3y ago
    The worst part of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is the requirement that websites "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression in users and viewers under 18 years of age. Here is the exact text from the bill's Section 3(a)(1) which prescribes this restriction: > SEC. 3. Duty of care. >> (a) Prevention of harm to minors.—A covered platform shall act in the best interests of a user that the platform knows or reasonably should know is a minor by taking reasonable measures in its design and operation of products and services to prevent and mitigate the following: >>> (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/1409/text#id114b8ce2-d765-4e5c-bc33-1a5073a1e5eb https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/140... There are many types of content that can trigger anxiety or depression that should not be censored for people under 18, such as political speech and negative/distressing news. (The implications this bill has on political speech and news reporting also raise questions about whether it is constitutional.) People under 18 have a right to be informed just as adults do, even if they don't have the ability to vote to protect that right for themselves. If you are in the United States, please call your senator and representatives to reject this draconian bill: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  In the US usually bills are written by private corporations
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    This should be illegal.
    - NuSkooler 3y ago
      Sure, but you see it's not a 'bribe' if you just call it 'lobbying', and corporations are people, so all good.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Why would they make it illegal? I know why you would want them to. But I don’t understand projecting wants onto power over us.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        You're right. My gut reaction was that it should be illegal because it's the government's job to legislate, not the private sector's. But having the private sector write legislation doesn't violate the government's duty. The government fulfills their role by passing it. While it still seems ripe for conflict of interest, I suppose it's not much worse than could happen if everything was kept internal to the government.
        wahnfrieden 3y ago
        It should be illegal for businesses to write our laws (the lawmakers do not even read them - so your point about govt fulfilling their duty is a thin one). But power doesn’t work that way, this is the result of power acting in its own interest. Solution is to strip this power
        darkclouds 3y ago
        > But having the private sector write legislation doesn't violate the government's duty. The government fulfills their role by passing it. So massive CEO wages are justified then considering its your boss or the boss of the largest company in your line of work helping to write the legislation?
- irjustin 3y ago
  > Seems it is a tracking of children bill that advertising companies would love to have access to. Downvoted - where is tracking in this bill[0]? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3663/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/366...
- darkclouds 3y ago
  > if you want your young child to be "protected", keep them off line. What about the school playground and mobile phones? Do you think kids dont share stuff they have seen, online and offline? Can you stop your offline kids from interacting with online kids with devices? I see loads of people sharing stuff they have on their mobile phone to other people. What that stuff is, I dont know, but Google's "photoshop" facilities built into their camera app, requires the images to be taken off the phone, processed in the cloud and then sent back to the device, so there are a whole host of points at play, like data privacy. So is the govt late to the party or is the govt saying the tech companies can not be trusted or is it something else? If you know anything about biology, you'll realise some parents are not really the best educators. When do parents stop being able to help their kids do homework if they get any help from their parents at all? Is homework a stealth child welfare test and parental intelligence test? Do people who complain about this bill, display their own subconcious bias? How much do you read into what is probably one of the most emotive subjects. Does it dig up our own vulnerabilities and fears as a child for all to see? So many ways to look at this stuff, just what do you read into it?
NuSkooler 3y ago
I worked at a parental controls company for a number of years here in Utah. There were various high members of the LDS church (whom were connected with our company in different ways) that would be pushing these kinds of things all the time.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  I haven't known general authorities to advocate for violating constitutional rights.
  - NuSkooler 3y ago
    Mandatory filtering/blocking seems pretty unconstitutional to me, which is just one example.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Would you rather have Chrome permit everyone to visit every phishing site? Not OK to take down C2 or botnets? Like it when a DDOS crushes your favorite website because Akamai and Cloudflare can't blackhole the traffic? Your ISP can't filter SMB ports, so everyone with Windows File Sharing gets pwned?
      - tpxl 3y ago
        I would rather have governments punish criminals operating phishing sites, C2 and botnets, since, you know, it's _illegal_.
        ourmandave 3y ago
        I'm sure the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean govts will get right on that.
        tpxl 3y ago
        Perhaps if malicious countries are engaging in cybercrime in your country, you should disconnect them from your countries internet/phone connections. This would get them to behave right quick or suffer the effects of sanctions. It ain't perfect, but it's better than saying "there's nothing we can do, dude".
_8j50 3y ago
Meh, I'm usually overly opinionated on this stuff but hard to form a strong sentiment on this one. On one hand I applaud them wanting to address this, on the other, book authors and in persons stores don't have to do this and I also strongly believe it is a parent's responsibility to protect kids like this. How about this, thinking of it as if it was a security problem, I would focus on who is the admin, what do they control and where is the protected data/resource and the answer is: the parent, their home and devices, their kids' devices/data. If you think about it, kids can just use sites outside of the US and avoid all this hassle. So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content and notify parents who can the council their kids or restrict access and content as they see fit. That way, all the privacy/eff people don't have to worry about tech megacorps spending money on this or them having to age verify and hire more staff and lawyers. Kids don't have a right to privacy from their parents, although as they get older and show responsibility and maturity they should get more privacy rights. The pattern I see here is similar to how schooling is done where the school basically raises kids instead of parents. Hold parents responsible and accountable but give them tools and training to succeed instead of expecting tech companies to do the raising for them. I will say this though, there is nothing at all more valuable that a parent can give their child than discipline. A close second to that might showing them how to be in a healthy relationship first hand, by being the actual parent and carefully teaching them to be realonsible and then trusting them with rights like privacy and making life changing decisions for themselves.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content And certain people would classify “undesirable content” as publicizing the fact that gay people exist and that there are other ways to prevent teenage pregnancies than abstinence.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    Exactly. And more generally, some would classify it as "undesirable" that kids can get access to any information their parents don't want them to have. Sometimes that's a feature, and can help change someone's life for the better. "Oh, I'm not actually evil and sinful, it turns out my parents are just hyper-religious nuts and now I have sufficient access to understand what more normal and accepting society is like." (I'm deeply thankful that that was not a problem I had myself. I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity.)
notjoemama 3y ago
First of all, the "tracking" boogeyman is already loose. I used to work in online advertising in aggregating data. "The bill holds platforms liable if their designs and services do not “prevent and mitigate” a list of societal ills: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, physical violence, online bullying and harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and suicidal behaviors." I expect a few sacrificial lambs to be very visibly slaughtered if this passes. I'm calling it now, AP -> NY Times -> MSNBC -> your social media feed -> Hacker News. "Additionally, platforms would be responsible for patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors." I almost want to support it just to see video game studios and developers lose their minds. There are 3rd party companies that process payments for micro transaction where they adjust the amounts shown to the users in real time based on how much they think they can charge you in that moment. There are also 3rd party companies offering services to "optimize" stickiness. That's, psychologically profiling you as the user and breaking down your defenses against spending money on the platform or navigating away from their platform. The demonic symphony of complaints would be beautiful in a way. Plus we'll get a hot take from Whoopie Goldberg on The View about it. Probably something negative about Republicans despite the bill being resurrected by both a Republican and Democrat. I'm already lol-ing. Looking forward to it.
smeagull 3y ago
Anyone else think that we should just ban kids from accessing the internet?
- TylerE 3y ago
  Depends on if you want them to be totally unprepared for society or not. Would you consider it reasonable to ban anyone under 18 from reading or visiting a library?
  - dudul 3y ago
    A lot of people only started using the internet in their twenties and do just fine.
    - lotsoweiners 3y ago
      Cool. You let your kids on the internet in their 20s and I’ll continue to allow my single digit aged kids on the internet. Nothing wrong with people having different values and parenting methods.
  - tacotacotaco 3y ago
    Human civilization made it all the way to 1990’s without commercial internet. Maybe keeping children off the internet would make them better prepared for society.
    - barelyauser 3y ago
      Yes, keeping them oblivious of the very thing central to modern society will surely prepare them well.
      - smeagull 3y ago
        Perhaps you think they should fill out tax forms too.
    - TylerE 3y ago
jdp23 3y ago
The new version that just dropped today is even worse. Evan Greer has a good Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/evan_greer/status/1684303837874593794 https://twitter.com/evan_greer/status/1684303837874593794 And, there's a committee vote on KOSA tomorrow, so if you're in the US please contact your Congresspeople -- https://www.stopkosa.com/ https://www.stopkosa.com/
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
  Thread? I only see a single message. Is the rest of it hidden when not logged in?
  - GavinAnderegg 3y ago
    Yes, that changed a few weeks back. For several days, you would only see login UI if not logged in[0]. This was then updated to show only the linked tweet with no other context. This was likely changed because Google was starting to limit Twitter content in search results[1]. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-unregistered-users-account-tweets https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-u... [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/3/23783153/google-twitter-tweets-changes-rate-limits https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/3/23783153/google-twitter-tw...
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      Use Nitter instead, at least until it gets blocked (I assume any day now).
wonderwonder 3y ago
Generally I am against government regulation of most media but I think its reached the point where something is needed. Platform algorithms are too good and they absolutely promote doom scrolling, media addiction, suicidal thoughts, poor self image, depression, and a host of other issues. Social media has not been a boon for kids or really anyone except marketers. On top of that video games absolutely target kids to spend money and are addictive. Roblox is built on this, so is Fortnight and similar games. Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. Overall this is not a substitute for parents knowing what their kids are doing and regulating their media intake.
- danShumway 3y ago
  This is frustrating to read, and I hope that my reply doesn't come off as too snippy. But it really feels like people will do anything, including throwing away rights to privacy, infringing on free speech, and ignoring the advice of over 100 civil rights advocacy groups -- all just to avoid breaking up a few companies or directly legislating algorithms. I just do not understand how weakening constitutional rights is on the table for you and so many other people before antitrust is. It's not even the least invasive compelled speech option! If you've got to target speech, then on one hand we have, "giving the government the power to decide which platforms are liable for what and requiring that teenagers have their speech surveilled online even though multiple government actors involved in the bill are open about the fact that they'd like to use the government to suppress LGBTQ+ speech and consider all LGBTQ+ expression to be harmful for minors", vs "force social media platforms like Facebook to use a timeline rather than displaying algorithmic content." Both would be compelled speech, but if you absolutely have to compel something the second is a lot less dangerous than the first. Every time these conversations pop up there a few people gesturing wildly at the word "antitrust", and everyone else is saying, "well, we've tried literally everything possible, maybe we're at the point where we really do need to build a surveillance apparatus for every teenager in the US, there's just nothing else we can do." You don't have to infringe on the rights of every single minor in the country, you can break up abusive companies. It's totally allowed. We've done it before and it was great! Breaking up companies can be a healthy bonding activity for a divided country that's fun for the whole family and brings us all closer together, so just give it a try ;)
kelnos 3y ago
I'm starting to feel like all of this is just a lost cause. We campaign against some shitty bill. It fails to pass. Someone brings it up again the next session, and we have to do it all over again. Eventually, people get tired of fighting, and it passes. Every time I've written to my Senator or Representative about something they support but I don't like, I get a form letter in response that just restates their existing position. I don't get the feeling that anything I do matters. And honestly, I'm doing the bare minimum here. I can't imagine how depressing all this must be for people who engage in actual activism around these issues.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. Actual activism keeps this in mind: winning looks like bad things not passing. It looks like keeping an eye out for societal danger, mobilizing against it, and celebrating once the danger has been defeated-- with the knowledge that they must remain vigilant.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    > I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. Constitutional amendments are hard to repeal. And some states have passed legislation that says things like "this can't be repealed by the state legislature, only by a vote of the people".
    - irjustin 3y ago
      > That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. For the point of discourse, I'll point out that the "otherside" thinks the exact same thing.
martin_drapeau 3y ago
As a parent, I want the responsibility for educating my child on the dangers of the Internet based on my core values. I don't think the government should get involved. We have very different ideas on what is safe or not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
costco 3y ago
Why don't the policy nerds try to think about what a [V-chip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip) for social media would look like and try to come up with a more voluntary solution in that style?
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Why don't the policy nerds try to think about what a V-chip for social media would look like and try to come up with a more voluntary solution in that style? Okay, wow. 1990s is a long way to go to find ineffectual tech. For a more recent example (of law that was incapable of achieving it's goal), how about fosta/sesta?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sebguer 3y ago
    Fosta/Sesta 'accomplished' its goal, which was to kill a bunch of websites and further tighten speech on the internet.
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      F/S was used exactly one time, against one site. Past that your point is taken.
SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
Blumenthal and Blackburn… imagine my surprise. The USA does have a uniparty and these two are happy to be there.
synergy20 3y ago
There is CIPA(Children's Internet Protection Act), which is to limit federal funds to libraries and schools etc. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-prot... So KOSA is one step further and put the rules(and more of them) to all the websites?
nemo44x 3y ago
Be suspicious of any law that both parties want to pass quickly. Media likes to write about “gridlock” and other such obstacles and perhaps it feels frustrating sometimes. And it is. But the other side of it is frustrating to them too. Most of it is trivial in the end. But when they start quickly agreeing on things you can be sure they’re up to trouble.
INGSOCIALITE 3y ago
It’s infuriating that when they make these bills that they KNOW will rile people up and cause protest, they give them a “won’t you think of the children” name “kids online safety act”… now when you say it’s no good and needs to be modified or fought, you look like an absolute monster who doesn’t care about kids or their online safety. These acts should be given a number as a title. The intent of the act or bill should be clearly stated in line 1, and the act or bill itself should be required to ONLY facilitate that intent.
leotravis10 3y ago
Update: The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today has voted to advance the bill, which as the EFF post stated, this is a internet censorship bill in disguise and would do irreparable damage to everyone that uses the internet if passed. https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/27/23809876/kosa-coppa-2-child-safety-privacy-protection-social-media https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/27/23809876/kosa-coppa-2-chi... I feel this Techdirt piece that Mike published today explains that despite Congress pretending that they have fixed the issues of the bill, they haven't. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/27/congress-pretends-its-fixed-all-the-problems-with-kosa-it-hasnt/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/27/congress-pretends-its-fi... It's a very good idea to get in touch with your Senators and really tell them how you feel about this and tell them where they stand on this potentially internet destroying bill.

299 points by leotravis10 3y ago

I would like to know who is paying (or bribing in the US) to push these bills. Seems it is a tracking of children bill that advertising companies would love to have access to. I am sure it will be private companies that do the tracking. Also I am sure an encryption backdoor will be built into this bill if not already. As a parent, if you want your young child to be "protected", keep them off line.

flipbrad 3y ago
In the UK, the AVPA - age verification providers association (members include Experian) have been super active on the Online Safety Bill. Curious to know if there's a US involvement , too. The media seems to have missed this - then again, these laws are their opportunity to stick the boot into Tech, and usually have carve outs and special treatment under these laws, so they're not especially incentivised to rock the boat here.
- jmclnx 3y ago
  Really, Experian ? That should give everyone the warm and fuzzies /s I am sure they are involved in the US with this. In anycase, it is legal for Companies in the US to donate (bribe) anonymously, so I am sure it is not documented anywhere. There has been many attempts to make that illegal, but no luck so far.
- jdp23 3y ago
  It's a very good point, I haven't seen a lot of discussion of the role of Experian et al in KOSA. In the US, it seems like it's mostly being driven by "child-safety" orgs, some of whom are well-intentioned but just don't understand the downsides, some of whom are anti-LGBTQ and appreciate the downsides. But others may well be active behind the scenes.
jstarfish 3y ago
I haven't read the bill, but my first thought is that there's always going to be some threat to children, so any time you want to play pork barrel politics, you can trot out some nebulous child-safety bill and append riders to that. Second thought is that this isn't about private interests (though it's possible). Big Tech moves and grows faster than the government. Arbitrary requirements are one way to papercut a larger entity into submission, like FOSTA/SESTA or 2257-- we'll give ourselves a way to take you down for something. Case in point: > The bill holds platforms liable if their designs and services do not “prevent and mitigate” a list of societal ills: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, physical violence, online bullying and harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and suicidal behaviors. Additionally, platforms would be responsible for patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors. Platforms would be responsible for preventing and mitigating anxiety. Platforms are prohibited from doing anything to incentivize repeat business. This is Obscenity 2.0.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  If large platforms were required to interoperate and provide complete open APIs, that would break down their network effect lock-in and ad-based double-sided business model and put us users in power to vote with our feet and wallets to make them do all those things we value. That’s what we should be fighting for: to let market forces do their job properly. However, existing Big Social would rather prefer that law regulated everything about them—it increases the barrier to entry for honest competitors while Facebooks of this world have enough people and money to throw at those things.
- commoner 3y ago
  The worst part of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is the requirement that websites "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression in users and viewers under 18 years of age. Here is the exact text from the bill's Section 3(a)(1) which prescribes this restriction: > SEC. 3. Duty of care. >> (a) Prevention of harm to minors.—A covered platform shall act in the best interests of a user that the platform knows or reasonably should know is a minor by taking reasonable measures in its design and operation of products and services to prevent and mitigate the following: >>> (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/1409/text#id114b8ce2-d765-4e5c-bc33-1a5073a1e5eb https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/140... There are many types of content that can trigger anxiety or depression that should not be censored for people under 18, such as political speech and negative/distressing news. (The implications this bill has on political speech and news reporting also raise questions about whether it is constitutional.) People under 18 have a right to be informed just as adults do, even if they don't have the ability to vote to protect that right for themselves. If you are in the United States, please call your senator and representatives to reject this draconian bill: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
wahnfrieden 3y ago
In the US usually bills are written by private corporations
- hellojesus 3y ago
  This should be illegal.
  - NuSkooler 3y ago
    Sure, but you see it's not a 'bribe' if you just call it 'lobbying', and corporations are people, so all good.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Why would they make it illegal? I know why you would want them to. But I don’t understand projecting wants onto power over us.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      You're right. My gut reaction was that it should be illegal because it's the government's job to legislate, not the private sector's. But having the private sector write legislation doesn't violate the government's duty. The government fulfills their role by passing it. While it still seems ripe for conflict of interest, I suppose it's not much worse than could happen if everything was kept internal to the government.
      - wahnfrieden 3y ago
        It should be illegal for businesses to write our laws (the lawmakers do not even read them - so your point about govt fulfilling their duty is a thin one). But power doesn’t work that way, this is the result of power acting in its own interest. Solution is to strip this power
      - darkclouds 3y ago
        > But having the private sector write legislation doesn't violate the government's duty. The government fulfills their role by passing it. So massive CEO wages are justified then considering its your boss or the boss of the largest company in your line of work helping to write the legislation?
irjustin 3y ago
> Seems it is a tracking of children bill that advertising companies would love to have access to. Downvoted - where is tracking in this bill[0]? [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3663/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/366...
darkclouds 3y ago
> if you want your young child to be "protected", keep them off line. What about the school playground and mobile phones? Do you think kids dont share stuff they have seen, online and offline? Can you stop your offline kids from interacting with online kids with devices? I see loads of people sharing stuff they have on their mobile phone to other people. What that stuff is, I dont know, but Google's "photoshop" facilities built into their camera app, requires the images to be taken off the phone, processed in the cloud and then sent back to the device, so there are a whole host of points at play, like data privacy. So is the govt late to the party or is the govt saying the tech companies can not be trusted or is it something else? If you know anything about biology, you'll realise some parents are not really the best educators. When do parents stop being able to help their kids do homework if they get any help from their parents at all? Is homework a stealth child welfare test and parental intelligence test? Do people who complain about this bill, display their own subconcious bias? How much do you read into what is probably one of the most emotive subjects. Does it dig up our own vulnerabilities and fears as a child for all to see? So many ways to look at this stuff, just what do you read into it?

NuSkooler 3y ago

I worked at a parental controls company for a number of years here in Utah. There were various high members of the LDS church (whom were connected with our company in different ways) that would be pushing these kinds of things all the time.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
I haven't known general authorities to advocate for violating constitutional rights.
- NuSkooler 3y ago
  Mandatory filtering/blocking seems pretty unconstitutional to me, which is just one example.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Would you rather have Chrome permit everyone to visit every phishing site? Not OK to take down C2 or botnets? Like it when a DDOS crushes your favorite website because Akamai and Cloudflare can't blackhole the traffic? Your ISP can't filter SMB ports, so everyone with Windows File Sharing gets pwned?
    - tpxl 3y ago
      I would rather have governments punish criminals operating phishing sites, C2 and botnets, since, you know, it's _illegal_.
      - ourmandave 3y ago
        I'm sure the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean govts will get right on that.
        tpxl 3y ago
        Perhaps if malicious countries are engaging in cybercrime in your country, you should disconnect them from your countries internet/phone connections. This would get them to behave right quick or suffer the effects of sanctions. It ain't perfect, but it's better than saying "there's nothing we can do, dude".

_8j50 3y ago

Meh, I'm usually overly opinionated on this stuff but hard to form a strong sentiment on this one. On one hand I applaud them wanting to address this, on the other, book authors and in persons stores don't have to do this and I also strongly believe it is a parent's responsibility to protect kids like this. How about this, thinking of it as if it was a security problem, I would focus on who is the admin, what do they control and where is the protected data/resource and the answer is: the parent, their home and devices, their kids' devices/data. If you think about it, kids can just use sites outside of the US and avoid all this hassle. So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content and notify parents who can the council their kids or restrict access and content as they see fit. That way, all the privacy/eff people don't have to worry about tech megacorps spending money on this or them having to age verify and hire more staff and lawyers. Kids don't have a right to privacy from their parents, although as they get older and show responsibility and maturity they should get more privacy rights. The pattern I see here is similar to how schooling is done where the school basically raises kids instead of parents. Hold parents responsible and accountable but give them tools and training to succeed instead of expecting tech companies to do the raising for them. I will say this though, there is nothing at all more valuable that a parent can give their child than discipline. A close second to that might showing them how to be in a healthy relationship first hand, by being the actual parent and carefully teaching them to be realonsible and then trusting them with rights like privacy and making life changing decisions for themselves.

scarface_74 3y ago
> So my suggestion would be for these lawmakers to mandate the FTC to come up with apps to monitor undesirable content And certain people would classify “undesirable content” as publicizing the fact that gay people exist and that there are other ways to prevent teenage pregnancies than abstinence.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  Exactly. And more generally, some would classify it as "undesirable" that kids can get access to any information their parents don't want them to have. Sometimes that's a feature, and can help change someone's life for the better. "Oh, I'm not actually evil and sinful, it turns out my parents are just hyper-religious nuts and now I have sufficient access to understand what more normal and accepting society is like." (I'm deeply thankful that that was not a problem I had myself. I would like everyone else to have the same opportunity.)

notjoemama 3y ago

First of all, the "tracking" boogeyman is already loose. I used to work in online advertising in aggregating data. "The bill holds platforms liable if their designs and services do not “prevent and mitigate” a list of societal ills: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, physical violence, online bullying and harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and suicidal behaviors." I expect a few sacrificial lambs to be very visibly slaughtered if this passes. I'm calling it now, AP -> NY Times -> MSNBC -> your social media feed -> Hacker News. "Additionally, platforms would be responsible for patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors." I almost want to support it just to see video game studios and developers lose their minds. There are 3rd party companies that process payments for micro transaction where they adjust the amounts shown to the users in real time based on how much they think they can charge you in that moment. There are also 3rd party companies offering services to "optimize" stickiness. That's, psychologically profiling you as the user and breaking down your defenses against spending money on the platform or navigating away from their platform. The demonic symphony of complaints would be beautiful in a way. Plus we'll get a hot take from Whoopie Goldberg on The View about it. Probably something negative about Republicans despite the bill being resurrected by both a Republican and Democrat. I'm already lol-ing. Looking forward to it.

smeagull 3y ago

Anyone else think that we should just ban kids from accessing the internet?

TylerE 3y ago
Depends on if you want them to be totally unprepared for society or not. Would you consider it reasonable to ban anyone under 18 from reading or visiting a library?
- dudul 3y ago
  A lot of people only started using the internet in their twenties and do just fine.
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    Cool. You let your kids on the internet in their 20s and I’ll continue to allow my single digit aged kids on the internet. Nothing wrong with people having different values and parenting methods.
- tacotacotaco 3y ago
  Human civilization made it all the way to 1990’s without commercial internet. Maybe keeping children off the internet would make them better prepared for society.
  - barelyauser 3y ago
    Yes, keeping them oblivious of the very thing central to modern society will surely prepare them well.
    - smeagull 3y ago
      Perhaps you think they should fill out tax forms too.
  - TylerE 3y ago

jdp23 3y ago

The new version that just dropped today is even worse. Evan Greer has a good Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/evan_greer/status/1684303837874593794 https://twitter.com/evan_greer/status/1684303837874593794 And, there's a committee vote on KOSA tomorrow, so if you're in the US please contact your Congresspeople -- https://www.stopkosa.com/ https://www.stopkosa.com/

ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
Thread? I only see a single message. Is the rest of it hidden when not logged in?
- GavinAnderegg 3y ago
  Yes, that changed a few weeks back. For several days, you would only see login UI if not logged in[0]. This was then updated to show only the linked tweet with no other context. This was likely changed because Google was starting to limit Twitter content in search results[1]. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-unregistered-users-account-tweets https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-u... [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/3/23783153/google-twitter-tweets-changes-rate-limits https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/3/23783153/google-twitter-tw...
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Use Nitter instead, at least until it gets blocked (I assume any day now).

wonderwonder 3y ago

Generally I am against government regulation of most media but I think its reached the point where something is needed. Platform algorithms are too good and they absolutely promote doom scrolling, media addiction, suicidal thoughts, poor self image, depression, and a host of other issues. Social media has not been a boon for kids or really anyone except marketers. On top of that video games absolutely target kids to spend money and are addictive. Roblox is built on this, so is Fortnight and similar games. Lets try regulation and see what happens; something has to change. Overall this is not a substitute for parents knowing what their kids are doing and regulating their media intake.

danShumway 3y ago
This is frustrating to read, and I hope that my reply doesn't come off as too snippy. But it really feels like people will do anything, including throwing away rights to privacy, infringing on free speech, and ignoring the advice of over 100 civil rights advocacy groups -- all just to avoid breaking up a few companies or directly legislating algorithms. I just do not understand how weakening constitutional rights is on the table for you and so many other people before antitrust is. It's not even the least invasive compelled speech option! If you've got to target speech, then on one hand we have, "giving the government the power to decide which platforms are liable for what and requiring that teenagers have their speech surveilled online even though multiple government actors involved in the bill are open about the fact that they'd like to use the government to suppress LGBTQ+ speech and consider all LGBTQ+ expression to be harmful for minors", vs "force social media platforms like Facebook to use a timeline rather than displaying algorithmic content." Both would be compelled speech, but if you absolutely have to compel something the second is a lot less dangerous than the first. Every time these conversations pop up there a few people gesturing wildly at the word "antitrust", and everyone else is saying, "well, we've tried literally everything possible, maybe we're at the point where we really do need to build a surveillance apparatus for every teenager in the US, there's just nothing else we can do." You don't have to infringe on the rights of every single minor in the country, you can break up abusive companies. It's totally allowed. We've done it before and it was great! Breaking up companies can be a healthy bonding activity for a divided country that's fun for the whole family and brings us all closer together, so just give it a try ;)

kelnos 3y ago

I'm starting to feel like all of this is just a lost cause. We campaign against some shitty bill. It fails to pass. Someone brings it up again the next session, and we have to do it all over again. Eventually, people get tired of fighting, and it passes. Every time I've written to my Senator or Representative about something they support but I don't like, I get a form letter in response that just restates their existing position. I don't get the feeling that anything I do matters. And honestly, I'm doing the bare minimum here. I can't imagine how depressing all this must be for people who engage in actual activism around these issues.

EatingWithForks 3y ago
I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. Actual activism keeps this in mind: winning looks like bad things not passing. It looks like keeping an eye out for societal danger, mobilizing against it, and celebrating once the danger has been defeated-- with the knowledge that they must remain vigilant.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like. That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. Constitutional amendments are hard to repeal. And some states have passed legislation that says things like "this can't be repealed by the state legislature, only by a vote of the people".
  - irjustin 3y ago
    > That may be, but once in a while it'd be nice to pass something positively affirming specific rights that prevents anyone from easily trying again to take them away. For the point of discourse, I'll point out that the "otherside" thinks the exact same thing.

martin_drapeau 3y ago

As a parent, I want the responsibility for educating my child on the dangers of the Internet based on my core values. I don't think the government should get involved. We have very different ideas on what is safe or not.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

costco 3y ago

Why don't the policy nerds try to think about what a [V-chip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip) for social media would look like and try to come up with a more voluntary solution in that style?

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Why don't the policy nerds try to think about what a V-chip for social media would look like and try to come up with a more voluntary solution in that style? Okay, wow. 1990s is a long way to go to find ineffectual tech. For a more recent example (of law that was incapable of achieving it's goal), how about fosta/sesta?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Sebguer 3y ago
  Fosta/Sesta 'accomplished' its goal, which was to kill a bunch of websites and further tighten speech on the internet.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    F/S was used exactly one time, against one site. Past that your point is taken.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

Blumenthal and Blackburn… imagine my surprise. The USA does have a uniparty and these two are happy to be there.

synergy20 3y ago

There is CIPA(Children's Internet Protection Act), which is to limit federal funds to libraries and schools etc. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-internet-prot... So KOSA is one step further and put the rules(and more of them) to all the websites?

nemo44x 3y ago

Be suspicious of any law that both parties want to pass quickly. Media likes to write about “gridlock” and other such obstacles and perhaps it feels frustrating sometimes. And it is. But the other side of it is frustrating to them too. Most of it is trivial in the end. But when they start quickly agreeing on things you can be sure they’re up to trouble.

INGSOCIALITE 3y ago

It’s infuriating that when they make these bills that they KNOW will rile people up and cause protest, they give them a “won’t you think of the children” name “kids online safety act”… now when you say it’s no good and needs to be modified or fought, you look like an absolute monster who doesn’t care about kids or their online safety. These acts should be given a number as a title. The intent of the act or bill should be clearly stated in line 1, and the act or bill itself should be required to ONLY facilitate that intent.

leotravis10 3y ago

Update: The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier today has voted to advance the bill, which as the EFF post stated, this is a internet censorship bill in disguise and would do irreparable damage to everyone that uses the internet if passed. https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/27/23809876/kosa-coppa-2-child-safety-privacy-protection-social-media https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/27/23809876/kosa-coppa-2-chi... I feel this Techdirt piece that Mike published today explains that despite Congress pretending that they have fixed the issues of the bill, they haven't. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/27/congress-pretends-its-fixed-all-the-problems-with-kosa-it-hasnt/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/07/27/congress-pretends-its-fi... It's a very good idea to get in touch with your Senators and really tell them how you feel about this and tell them where they stand on this potentially internet destroying bill.