3 ms·

> It even contains language that absolves platforms of responsibility for content specifically requested by children Actually, the bill does not absolve platfo

> It even contains language that absolves platforms of responsibility for content specifically requested by children Actually, the bill does not absolve platforms of that responsibility. Let me format the text of the bill's Section 3(b) into something more readable: > SEC. 3. Duty of care. >> (b) Limitation.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to require a covered platform to prevent or preclude— >>> (1) any minor from deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content; or >>> (2) the covered platform or individuals on the platform from providing resources for the prevention or mitigation of suicidal behaviors, substance use, and other harms, including evidence-informed information and clinical resources. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409/text#idFD15D20474AD45D1A8C857F7B689BAE5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/140... Section 3(b)(1) is worded in a deceptive way. It does not prevent websites from allowing minors to search for censored content censored by the bill, but the text of the "Limitation" still does not allow websites to display content censored by the bill, even when specifically requested by the minor. Websites would still have a "duty of care" to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression in users and viewers under 18 years of age, as prescribed in Section 3(a)(1), which is something that requires content any adult would find acceptable to be broadly censored.

ke88y 3y ago
> It does not prevent websites from allowing minors to search for censored content censored by the bill, but the text of the "Limitation" still does not allow websites to display content censored by the bill No judge except the most cravenly political would accept that the legislature intended that kids should be able to type things into a search bar but not see the results of the search. That makes no sense and clearly isn't what the law intends. Which does in fact matter. And if a judge is that full of shit, I don't think the absence of KOSA is going to stop them from finding some pretense to accept an inane legal theory with similar results. Anyways, I agree the word "display" should be added, but this whole line of argumentation seems pretty desperate.
- commoner 3y ago
  It's not "desperate" to evaluate a bill by its actual text. Judging by the presumably incorrect language used in Section 3(b)(1) and the ill-considered mandate to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression in Section 3(a)(1), the Kids Online Safety Act is too sloppily written to deserve serious consideration. If the intent of KOSA differs from the text of KOSA, then the bill should be written correctly before it is voted on, since the bill as it is currently written would lead to an endless debate over the intended meaning of its poor phrasing years after its prescribed censorship takes effect.

ke88y 3y ago

> It does not prevent websites from allowing minors to search for censored content censored by the bill, but the text of the "Limitation" still does not allow websites to display content censored by the bill No judge except the most cravenly political would accept that the legislature intended that kids should be able to type things into a search bar but not see the results of the search. That makes no sense and clearly isn't what the law intends. Which does in fact matter. And if a judge is that full of shit, I don't think the absence of KOSA is going to stop them from finding some pretense to accept an inane legal theory with similar results. Anyways, I agree the word "display" should be added, but this whole line of argumentation seems pretty desperate.

commoner 3y ago
It's not "desperate" to evaluate a bill by its actual text. Judging by the presumably incorrect language used in Section 3(b)(1) and the ill-considered mandate to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression in Section 3(a)(1), the Kids Online Safety Act is too sloppily written to deserve serious consideration. If the intent of KOSA differs from the text of KOSA, then the bill should be written correctly before it is voted on, since the bill as it is currently written would lead to an endless debate over the intended meaning of its poor phrasing years after its prescribed censorship takes effect.