5 ms·
Full text of the new version of the bill can be found here: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/21424kosabilltext.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.
by quasse 3y ago
Full text of the new version of the bill can be found here: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/21424kosabilltext.pdf https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/21424kosabil...
I am reading though the bill right now and do not have quite the same takeaway that the EFF is promoting. Sec 102 specifically exempts platforms from limiting "any minor from deliberately and independently searching for, or specifically requesting, content". This seems to neuter a lot of the pushback that the bill will prevent youth from searching for sexual health, minority status, LGBTQ+ information.
I think a lot of platforms are upset that they won't be able to push this type of content algorithmically (see the prevalence of "mental-health-tok", "5 signs that you have ADHD" videos) but I am *very* skeptical that this type of content is healthy for anyone. I think it drives a ton of engagement which large platforms don't want to lose.
My main beef with KOSA is that a bunch of the meat of the rules and enforcement (Sec 106 - Sec 109) is completely punted on. Lots of "Not later than 18 months after the enactment of this act" the FTC will "issue guidance" or create rules for various things. It seems like Congress doesn't quite know what they want to regulate, but they want someone (who isn't them) to do so.
- birdofhermes 3y agoConservative legal minds will argue that the laundry list of topics covered under 102.A includes a duty to censor, e.g., “information on transitioning”. They already believe any and all forms of transition (including calling a child by a nickname, see Florida state law) constitute child abuse. They have already fabricated “evidence-informed information” showing that all forms of transition are harmful, and they’ll argue that only these sources qualify for the 102.B.2 exemption. Once Chevron deference is dead, all it will take is an act of Congress to enshrine this specific interpretation of the law. Handing FTC the authority to enforce is a fig leaf designed to fool the center-right.
- huytersd 3y ago[flagged]
- boolemancer 3y agoI'm not sure why you're bringing circumcision into this.
- birdofhermes 3y agoI assumed they were talking about genital reassignment surgery for infants born with ambiguous genitals.
- rustcleaner 3y agoIt's the largest scale easy to solve massive human rights violation in The Western World(tm)! Frankly I am deeply saddened it isn't in every thread on every discussion forum. Eric Clopper gave his Harvard presentation OVER FIVE YEARS AGO!!! I mean a whole body part (15 in^2) just censored from medical literature and the public's mind for a century or more... how crazy is that?!
- birdofhermes 3y ago> A child cannot goddamn consent. And yet, somehow, children across the United States get the exact same gender-affirming treatments (including but not limited to hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, and yes, even genital mutilation) without complaint only if the gender being affirmed happens to match some evaluation of their biological sex. Anyway, setting that glaring contradiction aside, your argument fails in the context of social transition (e.g., being called a nickname), which is the much more common form of adolescent transition and still somehow elicits the same overreaction you have demonstrated.
- freejazz 3y agoSurely you must be more outraged by male circumcision which occurs more frequently by orders of magnitude?
- anthk 3y agoThat in Europe it's seen as barbaric and outdated stuff straight from the XIX century if not before.
- kmbfjr 3y agoWell isn’t that cute. Congress wants an administrative law solution but refuses to codify protections for other administrative law divisions like the EPA.