3 ms·

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-pr

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...

ke88y 3y ago
> When the government prevents people under 18 from watching YouTube videos KOSA does NOT prevent people under 18 from watching anything they want. > Richard Blumenthal, is one of the two senators who reintroduced the EARN IT Act in 2022 More specious FUD. KOSA is not EARN IT. There are several KOSA co-sponsors who did not support EARN IT. Why conflate the two? Can we not just have an adult conversation about what KOSA actually does or does not do?
- commoner 3y ago
  > KOSA does NOT prevent people under 18 from watching anything they want. You're assuming that people under 18 do not want to see content that may trigger anxiety or depression. The reality is that not everything in the world is positive, and people under 18 also want to be informed of negative news (such as the introduction of KOSA) so that they can educate themselves and respond appropriately. > More specious FUD. The only FUD here is the KOSA bill itself, which is a censorship bill that is being pushed as a way to "think of the children". Hiding content that may trigger anxiety or depression from people under 18 does not "protect children" any more than banning books does. Richard Blumenthal already has a history of introducing and co-sponsoring internet censorship bills including the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the EARN IT Act, bills that the public does not support. KOSA is yet another iteration of the same authoritarian lawmaking. Over 90 human rights organizations oppose KOSA because the bill harms people under 18 by diminishing their privacy, safety, and ability to access information: 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-.... These organizations include ones dedicated to civil rights, youth advocacy, and LGBTQ representation. No amount of hand-waving can make up for the problems in KOSA, a bill that has a negative impact on people under 18 despite its supporters' claims to the contrary.

ke88y 3y ago

> When the government prevents people under 18 from watching YouTube videos KOSA does NOT prevent people under 18 from watching anything they want. > Richard Blumenthal, is one of the two senators who reintroduced the EARN IT Act in 2022 More specious FUD. KOSA is not EARN IT. There are several KOSA co-sponsors who did not support EARN IT. Why conflate the two? Can we not just have an adult conversation about what KOSA actually does or does not do?

commoner 3y ago
> KOSA does NOT prevent people under 18 from watching anything they want. You're assuming that people under 18 do not want to see content that may trigger anxiety or depression. The reality is that not everything in the world is positive, and people under 18 also want to be informed of negative news (such as the introduction of KOSA) so that they can educate themselves and respond appropriately. > More specious FUD. The only FUD here is the KOSA bill itself, which is a censorship bill that is being pushed as a way to "think of the children". Hiding content that may trigger anxiety or depression from people under 18 does not "protect children" any more than banning books does. Richard Blumenthal already has a history of introducing and co-sponsoring internet censorship bills including the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) and the EARN IT Act, bills that the public does not support. KOSA is yet another iteration of the same authoritarian lawmaking. Over 90 human rights organizations oppose KOSA because the bill harms people under 18 by diminishing their privacy, safety, and ability to access information: 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-.... These organizations include ones dedicated to civil rights, youth advocacy, and LGBTQ representation. No amount of hand-waving can make up for the problems in KOSA, a bill that has a negative impact on people under 18 despite its supporters' claims to the contrary.