11 ms·
Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
- AceyMan 3y agoYou mean the Senate run by men like Mitch McConnell? No thanks.
- ke88y 3y agoThe Senate is currently run by Schumer, and KOSA has bipartisan sponsorship.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoMcConnell is the Senate Minority Leader, and may actually be a robot breaking down live in front of people, as seen on film recently
- ke88y 3y agoI am a huge fan of the Kids Online Safety Act, and if you aren't employed by Meta then you should be to. Social media algorithmic recommendations and "addictive product features" have to be turned off BY DEFAULT. Social media companies are responsible for not showing content to minors that promotes suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, tobacco, or alcohol. I think Internet Age Verification is both doomed to failure and also a terrible idea from a privacy perspective, but KOSA does not introduce age verification requirements. We need to reign in social media companies that are targeting children.
- thefurdrake 3y agoOh, it sounds great when it's phrased that way. What happens when an American-operated chat platform that provides E2EE claims they can't stop kids from seeing illegal content because of E2EE? All this legislation restricting free flow of information being pushed because "Think Of The Children" is concerning.
- ke88y 3y agoI encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long. KOSA requires that social media companies cannot target children with certain types of ads or provide algorithmic recommendations, when they "reasonably know" that the user is a minor. A company implementing E2EE can simply make the choice to either not serve minors or to not provide certain features (algorithmic content targeting, targeted ads) to users who are minors. No new age verification is required. Tech has had a knee-jerk reaction against doing anything to protect children online since the Slashdot days, because proponents of draconian laws often say "think of the children". But that doesn't mean that EVERY law intended to protect children is bad. And Meta et al need to be held to account.
- thefurdrake 3y agoI should set aside some time to look deeper, yeah. But: I fundamentally agree with the concept of restricting children from accessing social media up to a certain age. Shit's radioactive. Making the choice to not serve minors won't stop minors from lying about their age (no new age verification is required?), and it won't stop subpoenas from piling up from individual cases involving children when that company providing E2EE is compelled to provide data it specifically designed its platform not to be able to provide. It just worries me.
- ke88y 3y ago> Making the choice to not serve minors won't stop minors from lying about their age This is true. But I believe anonymous speech is important, and once you require age verification you necessarily sacrifice anonymity. > and it won't stop subpoenas from piling up from individual cases involving children when that company providing E2EE is compelled to provide data it specifically designed its platform not to be able to provide. There are certainly easier ways for law enforcement to do dragnet surveillance. Also, KOSA does not introduce criminal penalties.
- thefurdrake 3y ago> But I believe anonymous speech is important, and once you require age verification you necessarily sacrifice anonymity. I agree with you here. It's not a problem that I think can be solved through legislation. American law enforcement has proven that it'll collect data in a multitude of ways when needed contextually. They shouldn't be handed additional tools to do so. And I'm not talking about dragnet surveillance, I'm talking about the law creating tons of instances of E2EE getting in the way of "justice", which seems to be an increasingly-common problem, and that in turn being used to rationalize making E2EE illegal like it is in some other places already.
- Miner49er 3y agoHow do you limit content to minors without identifying who is a minor? Will it just be by honor system?
- ke88y 3y agoThe text of KOSA does not require age verification. The standard in the statute is "reasonably should know" that a user is a minor. This likely looks something like the status quo, where the site asks for but does not verify your age. Additionally, if the site does not know the user's age but eg categorizes a person as "12-15 years old" for the purpose of ad targeting and sells ads based upon this targeting feature, then courts will likely agree that they should have "reasonably known" that this person is 12-15 years old (else they were committing fraud in selling those ads). Not much changes in terms of age request/verification. What does change is what you need to do with that info about age once it's furnished and available. KOSA is about TARGETED ADS and ALGORITHMIC RECOMMENDATIONS. It even contains language that absolves platforms of responsibility for content specifically requested by children: > IMITATION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be10 construed to require a covered platform to prevent or pre-11 clude— any minor from deliberately and independ-13 ently searching for, or specifically requesting, con-14 tent; or15 (2) the covered platform or individuals on the16 platform from providing resources for the prevention17 or mitigation of suicidal behaviors, substance use,18 and other harms, including evidence-informed infor-19 mation and clinical resources
- leotravis10 3y agoThe text said it doesn't but honestly when readiing the bill, age verification is the most likely outcome for websites having to create a database of users to store their IDs/drivers licenses on their servers.
- averysmallbird 3y agoPlatforms have had legal obligations to treat children online differently since 2000, and yet that didn't happen.
- 3y ago
- sverona 3y agoI like the idea in principle, but with the way the US government is going, you get section 28 again on the grounds that being trans is a mental disorder curable by conversion therapy. Which it isn't. If I hadn't had trans people on the Internet I probably would've killed myself.
- ke88y 3y agoBelieve me: I have the same concern. Sec. 3(6)(b)(1) satisfactorily addresses my concerns. Platforms do not need to prevent minors from accessing materials that they are specifically seeking out. Also, the set of "mental health disorders" are specifically enumerated in Sec. 3(a)(1) and do not include any trans-specific medical issues, and includes the language "consistent with evidence-informed medical information" providing ample defense opportunities for companies who want to promote or provide trans-specific material. Finally, there are other statutes on the books that are more useful for political bullying of social media companies. To the extent that KOSA could be weaponized, the battle is lost anyways.
- commoner 3y agoThe text of Section 3(b)(1) is phrased in such a way that it actually does not address the censorship concern, since it only allows people under 18 to search for censored content, but still does not allow websites to display censored content. I've explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36900707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36900707 Section 3(a)(1) does not specifically list trans issues, but it does list anxiety and depression as two conditions that websites are required to "prevent and mitigate". This is arguably even worse, since the bill requires websites to censor reasonable content that would be informative to people of any gender identity.
- ke88y 3y agoThe "search vs display" logic is incredibly tortured, the legislative intent is more than clear, and no reasonable regulator or court would arrive at this interpretation of the statute. I agree that amending the text to mention "display" would improve the statute, but I doubt it much matters. If the regulators and courts are this unreasonable, they're going to do what they want and do damn with the letter of the law in an case. Allowing Meta et al to run amok unchecked on America's youth for fear that politically motivated AGs will weaponize this statute is ridiculous for another reason: KOSA isn't a necessary precondition. If state AGs want to go after sites that host trans content, they will do so with or without KOSA. KOSA will not make their job any easier, because abuse of KOSA in this way is extraordinarily tortured and there are any number of other federal and state statutes which can be used toward the same end with less tortured legal theories. An AG that dogged and a judge that activist won't be stopped by the mere absence of relevant statute. And hell, in the majority of those states, the general assemblies will almost certainly pass much more explicitly worded statutes about displaying trans content to children.
- RoseRose 3y ago> addictive product features What does this mean? All computer interaction is potentially addictive.
- ke88y 3y agoTrue. The text is "patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors". It's broad but careful wording. The FTC and courts will have to decide the exact meaning. I think "encourage" is clear enough and pretty obviously something we should regulate, since it signals intent. The implication of the word "indicate" is more ambiguous.
- RoseRose 3y ago> courts will have to decide the exact meaning. This doesn't concern you?
- averysmallbird 3y agoI am the staffer who cowrote this bill and I appreciate your comment and understanding of it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ke88y 3y agoThanks. 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.)
- averysmallbird 3y agoYour 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.
- commoner 3y agoYou 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/1409/text#id114b8ce2-d765-4e5c-bc33-1a5073a1e5eb 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?
- atlasunshrugged 3y agoIs 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?
- leotravis10 3y agoRelated discussion on KOSA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36885040
- jterrys 3y agoThis is a pretty fucking awful bill https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/young-people-should-oppose-kids-online-safety-act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/young-people-should-op... HN is now subject to astroturfers? The comments in here are insane
- commoner 3y agoI also oppose these bills. The effect of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which I have read, is that anyone under 18 years old would be prevented from viewing any content that a (most likely inaccurate) classification filter deems "harmful". This type of mandated censorship would never be accepted by adults with voting rights for themselves, and it is unfortunate that lawmakers continue to target the disenfranchised in this way. Section 3(a)(1) is most concerning: > 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... It is ridiculous to expect a website to censor any content that can induce anxiety or depression, which is what the bill requires. How exactly is that even supposed to be accomplished? Blocking distressing or negative news from reaching people under 18 will only lead to the next generation being less informed and is not going to build a better society. I will be calling my senator and representatives to reject these overreaching bills. If you are in the United States, it only takes a couple of minutes to let them know why this bill is unacceptable: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member
- leotravis10 3y agoAlso what I find this bill infurating is that groups such as the Heritage Foundation have openly stated out loud that KOSA, if passed will allow them to censor content they deem unsuitable for young people, which would include LGBTQ content. (1) (1) https://www.readtpa.com/p/congress-is-about-to-pass-a-very https://www.readtpa.com/p/congress-is-about-to-pass-a-very
- gigel82 3y agoIs this related to the "Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act" that popped up today? This is so confusing