4 ms·

The 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 fo

The 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 ago
The "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.
- commoner 3y ago
  > Allowing Meta et al to run amok unchecked on America's youth KOSA will implement government-mandated censorship against any content that is believed to trigger anxiety or depression, which is not an effective way to aid minors. In fact, over 90 human rights organizations have concluded that KOSA's censorship regime would be detrimental to minors: > KOSA establishes a burdensome, vague “duty of care” to prevent harms to minors for a broad range of online services that are reasonably likely to be used by a person under the age of 17. While KOSA’s aims of preventing harassment, exploitation, and mental health trauma for minors are laudable, the legislation is unfortunately likely to have damaging unintended consequences for young people. KOSA would require online services to “prevent” a set of harms to minors, which is effectively an instruction to employ broad content filtering to limit minors’ access to certain online content. Content filtering is notoriously imprecise; filtering used by schools and libraries in response to the Children’s Internet Protection Act has curtailed access to critical information such as sex education or resources for LGBTQ+ youth. Online services would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make political points about what kind of information is appropriate for young people. At a time when books with LGBTQ+ themes are being banned from school libraries and people providing healthcare to trans children are being falsely accused of “grooming,” KOSA would cut off another vital avenue of access to information for vulnerable youth. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2022-11-28-letter-90-lgbtq-and-human-rights-organizations-oppose-kosa https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2022-11-28-letter-90-... I'm also not impressed with how you are suggesting that people who oppose KOSA are pro-Meta. I do not use any Meta services and I have criticized Meta's privacy abuses for many years. KOSA's censorship mandate does not improve anyone's privacy in any way, and may actually benefit Meta by enlarging its moat since smaller competing social network services may not have the necessary budget or staffing needed to implement the censorship. > 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. The fact that some U.S. states are already limiting LGBT discourse by banning books is not a good reason to pass KOSA, a broadly worded federal bill that would be used to further hinder access to LGBT resources nationwide.

ke88y 3y ago

The "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.

commoner 3y ago
> Allowing Meta et al to run amok unchecked on America's youth KOSA will implement government-mandated censorship against any content that is believed to trigger anxiety or depression, which is not an effective way to aid minors. In fact, over 90 human rights organizations have concluded that KOSA's censorship regime would be detrimental to minors: > KOSA establishes a burdensome, vague “duty of care” to prevent harms to minors for a broad range of online services that are reasonably likely to be used by a person under the age of 17. While KOSA’s aims of preventing harassment, exploitation, and mental health trauma for minors are laudable, the legislation is unfortunately likely to have damaging unintended consequences for young people. KOSA would require online services to “prevent” a set of harms to minors, which is effectively an instruction to employ broad content filtering to limit minors’ access to certain online content. Content filtering is notoriously imprecise; filtering used by schools and libraries in response to the Children’s Internet Protection Act has curtailed access to critical information such as sex education or resources for LGBTQ+ youth. Online services would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make political points about what kind of information is appropriate for young people. At a time when books with LGBTQ+ themes are being banned from school libraries and people providing healthcare to trans children are being falsely accused of “grooming,” KOSA would cut off another vital avenue of access to information for vulnerable youth. https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2022-11-28-letter-90-lgbtq-and-human-rights-organizations-oppose-kosa https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2022-11-28-letter-90-... I'm also not impressed with how you are suggesting that people who oppose KOSA are pro-Meta. I do not use any Meta services and I have criticized Meta's privacy abuses for many years. KOSA's censorship mandate does not improve anyone's privacy in any way, and may actually benefit Meta by enlarging its moat since smaller competing social network services may not have the necessary budget or staffing needed to implement the censorship. > 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. The fact that some U.S. states are already limiting LGBT discourse by banning books is not a good reason to pass KOSA, a broadly worded federal bill that would be used to further hinder access to LGBT resources nationwide.