5 ms·

This 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/2023/0

This 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Also 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
- ke88y 3y ago
  You have misunderstood several aspects of this law. > I 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". The law specifically excludes sites that are not predominantly user-generated content. So if you are running a website about trans issues that is not predominantly user-generated content, KOSA does not apply, even if you are running that site for-profit. The law specifically excludes sites that are not run for-profit. So if you are running a non-profit forum for trans kids to discuss trans issue, KOSA does not apply. The law specifically excludes websites of educational institutions, so if you are child development professor or academically affiliated doctor at a for-profit university running a for-profit forum for trans kids to discuss trans issues, KOSA does not apply. I also argue -- vehemently -- that the first two cases (not user-generated, and/or not for-profit) are exactly the type of websites children should be seeking out for information on sensitive issues. Even if this law resulted in AGs banning trans content -- which I find extraordinarily unlikely because there are far simpler legal theories and state AGs abusing KOSA this badly can many other statutes that require less legal contortion -- it wouldn't apply to by far the most valuable sources of information and community. > It is ridiculous to expect a website to censor any content that can induce anxiety or depression Indeed it is. > which is what the bill requires No it does not. Food distributors have to take reasonable measures to ensure that they do not sell spoiled or tainted food. Food poisoning still happens. Auto manufacturers have to take reasonable measures to ensure cars protect occupants in case of collision. People still die in car crashes. The bill requires reasonable measures taken in design and operation of social media platforms. The intent here is that it should be illegal for Meta to juice under-17 engagement by algorithmically boosting content that leads to "doom scrolling", and the wording of the statute is designed to limit scope to that intent. This really is a bill about for-profit weaponization of human psychology against minors. To be blunt: the public, including me, are fed up with Meta/YT's for-profit algorithmic manipulation of children. Free speech existed before Meta started printing billions by getting kids addicted to social media, and will continue to exist after.
  - commoner 3y ago
    Government-mandated censorship does not suddenly become acceptable when it is restricted to user-generated content on a website that is not operated by a non-profit. When the government prevents people under 18 from watching YouTube videos or reading posts on major social networks about how asinine and anxiety-inducing the passage of authoritarian laws (such as the Kids Online Safety Act) would be, that is an unjustifiable suppression of political speech. That is the type of censorship the Kids Online Safety Act would enable if it is enacted. You cannot simply assume that "reasonable measures" would exclude censorship when the phrase is attached to a mandate to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression. A plaintiff or prosecutor could easily argue that "reasonable measures" do include censorship because these platforms have moderation teams, and simply saying "No it does not" is not a very good counterargument. Even though it is impractical to censor all discussions that fit some broad criteria (as the Great Firewall demonstrates), that does not make the censorship acceptable. The Kids Online Safety Act's sponsor, Richard Blumenthal, is one of the two senators who reintroduced the EARN IT Act in 2022* after it died in committee in 2020. Based on this, it's clear that the intent of the Kids Online Safety Act is to allow the government to stifle certain types of speech on certain mainstream websites and platforms under the guise of protecting children, which is also what the EARN IT Act attempted to do. The Kids Online Safety Act is written so ambiguously that any competent attorney would be able to use it to suppress protected speech and limit the ability of people under 18 to obtain information online. This bill needs to be stopped. * https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/1/22912387/earn-it-act-section-230-amendment-reintroduced https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/1/22912387/earn-it-act-secti...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ke88y 3y ago
The EFF complaints are specious FUD. There are many VERY simple ways to comply with KOSA that don't involve censorship, most of which boil down to "don't make your money by using weaponized human psychology on children". Does the bill make it harder for Meta to monetize and juice engagement amount the under-17 population? Absolutely. The job of Meta becomes much more difficult. They'll survive. > astroturfers I don't have any particular stake in this matter. I'm just sharing my opinion, as I do on many topics on this site, and sometimes I disagree with the Usent-cum-Slashdot-cum-HN hivemind. It couldn't possibly be that there exist real humans who think that subjecting children to social media content recommendation algorithms is, in fact, probably a bad idea. It couldn't possibly be the case that a bill with FORTY TWO co-sponsors -- damn close to half the chamber, and split equally between both parties -- is actually supported by a single real world human. No. Must be astroturfing. In the case of online safety for children, I think this corner of tech subculture has some deep-seated brainrot. Or perhaps it's just that those sweet Meta RSUs have appreciated a lot and not yet vested...
- jterrys 3y ago
  Half the comments in this thread are you systematically writing essay replies to every single person that has raised doubts about this bill. Whats more, you spend significant time blowing smoke up the ass of someone who willingly self identified themselves in here about co-writing the bill themselves, who also replied to other comments in this thread. So we can tell off the bat that there is a vested, devoted, interest in shaping the perception of this bill by the literal people who wrote it here. You then have the gall to call the EFF complaints 'specious FUD'. You can't even construct alegitimate counterargument. Just straight up dismissing them and saying they're fearmongering. You deflect this by claiming the bill will 'stick it to the man' that is Meta. Finally, you pathetically try to appeal to authority with the claim that the bill has forty two co-sponsors. This literally means fucking nothing. Absolutely nothing. Entire DUMBER bills are written and supported by more congressmen. It's honestly embarrassing that you think this is a strong point of why your bill should be passed through. So please, tell me how this isn't the genuine definition of astroturfing?
  - ke88y 3y ago

commoner 3y ago

I 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 ago
Also 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
ke88y 3y ago
You have misunderstood several aspects of this law. > I 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". The law specifically excludes sites that are not predominantly user-generated content. So if you are running a website about trans issues that is not predominantly user-generated content, KOSA does not apply, even if you are running that site for-profit. The law specifically excludes sites that are not run for-profit. So if you are running a non-profit forum for trans kids to discuss trans issue, KOSA does not apply. The law specifically excludes websites of educational institutions, so if you are child development professor or academically affiliated doctor at a for-profit university running a for-profit forum for trans kids to discuss trans issues, KOSA does not apply. I also argue -- vehemently -- that the first two cases (not user-generated, and/or not for-profit) are exactly the type of websites children should be seeking out for information on sensitive issues. Even if this law resulted in AGs banning trans content -- which I find extraordinarily unlikely because there are far simpler legal theories and state AGs abusing KOSA this badly can many other statutes that require less legal contortion -- it wouldn't apply to by far the most valuable sources of information and community. > It is ridiculous to expect a website to censor any content that can induce anxiety or depression Indeed it is. > which is what the bill requires No it does not. Food distributors have to take reasonable measures to ensure that they do not sell spoiled or tainted food. Food poisoning still happens. Auto manufacturers have to take reasonable measures to ensure cars protect occupants in case of collision. People still die in car crashes. The bill requires reasonable measures taken in design and operation of social media platforms. The intent here is that it should be illegal for Meta to juice under-17 engagement by algorithmically boosting content that leads to "doom scrolling", and the wording of the statute is designed to limit scope to that intent. This really is a bill about for-profit weaponization of human psychology against minors. To be blunt: the public, including me, are fed up with Meta/YT's for-profit algorithmic manipulation of children. Free speech existed before Meta started printing billions by getting kids addicted to social media, and will continue to exist after.
- commoner 3y ago
  Government-mandated censorship does not suddenly become acceptable when it is restricted to user-generated content on a website that is not operated by a non-profit. When the government prevents people under 18 from watching YouTube videos or reading posts on major social networks about how asinine and anxiety-inducing the passage of authoritarian laws (such as the Kids Online Safety Act) would be, that is an unjustifiable suppression of political speech. That is the type of censorship the Kids Online Safety Act would enable if it is enacted. You cannot simply assume that "reasonable measures" would exclude censorship when the phrase is attached to a mandate to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression. A plaintiff or prosecutor could easily argue that "reasonable measures" do include censorship because these platforms have moderation teams, and simply saying "No it does not" is not a very good counterargument. Even though it is impractical to censor all discussions that fit some broad criteria (as the Great Firewall demonstrates), that does not make the censorship acceptable. The Kids Online Safety Act's sponsor, Richard Blumenthal, is one of the two senators who reintroduced the EARN IT Act in 2022* after it died in committee in 2020. Based on this, it's clear that the intent of the Kids Online Safety Act is to allow the government to stifle certain types of speech on certain mainstream websites and platforms under the guise of protecting children, which is also what the EARN IT Act attempted to do. The Kids Online Safety Act is written so ambiguously that any competent attorney would be able to use it to suppress protected speech and limit the ability of people under 18 to obtain information online. This bill needs to be stopped. * https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/1/22912387/earn-it-act-section-230-amendment-reintroduced https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/1/22912387/earn-it-act-secti...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ke88y 3y ago

The EFF complaints are specious FUD. There are many VERY simple ways to comply with KOSA that don't involve censorship, most of which boil down to "don't make your money by using weaponized human psychology on children". Does the bill make it harder for Meta to monetize and juice engagement amount the under-17 population? Absolutely. The job of Meta becomes much more difficult. They'll survive. > astroturfers I don't have any particular stake in this matter. I'm just sharing my opinion, as I do on many topics on this site, and sometimes I disagree with the Usent-cum-Slashdot-cum-HN hivemind. It couldn't possibly be that there exist real humans who think that subjecting children to social media content recommendation algorithms is, in fact, probably a bad idea. It couldn't possibly be the case that a bill with FORTY TWO co-sponsors -- damn close to half the chamber, and split equally between both parties -- is actually supported by a single real world human. No. Must be astroturfing. In the case of online safety for children, I think this corner of tech subculture has some deep-seated brainrot. Or perhaps it's just that those sweet Meta RSUs have appreciated a lot and not yet vested...

jterrys 3y ago
Half the comments in this thread are you systematically writing essay replies to every single person that has raised doubts about this bill. Whats more, you spend significant time blowing smoke up the ass of someone who willingly self identified themselves in here about co-writing the bill themselves, who also replied to other comments in this thread. So we can tell off the bat that there is a vested, devoted, interest in shaping the perception of this bill by the literal people who wrote it here. You then have the gall to call the EFF complaints 'specious FUD'. You can't even construct alegitimate counterargument. Just straight up dismissing them and saying they're fearmongering. You deflect this by claiming the bill will 'stick it to the man' that is Meta. Finally, you pathetically try to appeal to authority with the claim that the bill has forty two co-sponsors. This literally means fucking nothing. Absolutely nothing. Entire DUMBER bills are written and supported by more congressmen. It's honestly embarrassing that you think this is a strong point of why your bill should be passed through. So please, tell me how this isn't the genuine definition of astroturfing?
- ke88y 3y ago