Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#21

Post by averysmallbird »

ke88y wrote: post #19
averysmallbird wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am the staffer who cowrote this bill and I appreciate your comment and understanding of it.

Thanks. I'd appreciate your thoughts on sverona's comment if you're able to share. (Not the particular scenario, but the general concern that KOSA could be weaponized by anti-LGBTQ AGs.)

Your read is correct. The duty of care was written, and further rewritten, to be narrowly applied to specific clinically-diagnosable harms and remedies. Adding to the point about the rule of construction, the lack of an exemption to Section 230 is meaningful in this regard.

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#22

Post by leotravis10 »

ke88y wrote: post #6
Miner49er wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you limit content to minors without identifying who is a minor? Will it just be by honor system?

The text of KOSA does not require age verification. The standard in the statute is "reasonably should know" that a user is a minor. This likely looks something like the status quo, where the site asks for but does not verify your age. Additionally, if the site does not know the user's age but eg categorizes a person as "12-15 years old" for the purpose of ad targeting and sells ads based upon this targeting feature,…

The text said it doesn't but honestly when readiing the bill, age verification is the most likely outcome for websites having to create a database of users to store their IDs/drivers licenses on their servers.

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#23

Post by averysmallbird »

leotravis10 wrote: post #22
ke88y wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text of KOSA does not require age verification. The standard in the statute is "reasonably should know" that a user is a minor. This likely looks something like the status quo, where the site asks for but does not verify your age. Additionally, if the site does not know the user's age but eg categorizes a person as "12-15 years old" for the purpose of ad targeting and sells ads based upon this targeting feature,…

The text said it doesn't but honestly when readiing the bill, age verification is the most likely outcome for websites having to create a database of users to store their IDs/drivers licenses on their servers.

Platforms have had legal obligations to treat children online differently since 2000, and yet that didn't happen.

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#24

Post by ke88y »

leotravis10 wrote: post #22
ke88y wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text of KOSA does not require age verification. The standard in the statute is "reasonably should know" that a user is a minor. This likely looks something like the status quo, where the site asks for but does not verify your age. Additionally, if the site does not know the user's age but eg categorizes a person as "12-15 years old" for the purpose of ad targeting and sells ads based upon this targeting feature,…

The text said it doesn't but honestly when readiing the bill, age verification is the most likely outcome for websites having to create a database of users to store their IDs/drivers licenses on their servers.

If you don't want age verification, then I think it is politically wise to fight that fight separately. Nothing about KOSA as written requires age verification, not even as a second order effect. Furthermore, KOSA does not introduce any market or regulatory incentive to implement additional identification tracking.

Mandatory or even incentivized age verification would require a separate act of Congress.

One of the things I like about KOSA is that it separates the verification question from the "once you know, then don't do X" question. A more nefarious bill designed to destroy anonymous speech on the internet would certainly conflate the two issues in a single statute.

As someone who doesn't want ANY mandatory age verification on the internet, I very much want to fight that fight on its own merits and not wrapped up with something like KOSA. Passing KOSA separately and without Age Verification requirements has the advantage of giving a stronger position to anonymous speech proponents when and if mandatory age verification statutes are proposed. Both in Congress and also, potentially, in court.

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#25

Post by [deleted] »

sverona wrote: post #8
ke88y wrote: post #3

I am a huge fan of the Kids Online Safety Act, and if you aren't employed by Meta then you should be to. Social media algorithmic recommendations and "addictive product features" have to be turned off BY DEFAULT. Social media companies are responsible for not showing content to minors that promotes suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, tobacco, or alcohol. I think Internet Age Verification…

I like the idea in principle, but with the way the US government is going, you get section 28 again on the grounds that being trans is a mental disorder curable by conversion therapy. Which it isn't. If I hadn't had trans people on the Internet I probably would've killed myself.

[deleted]

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#27

Post by atlasunshrugged »

averysmallbird wrote: post #16
ke88y wrote: post #3

I am a huge fan of the Kids Online Safety Act, and if you aren't employed by Meta then you should be to. Social media algorithmic recommendations and "addictive product features" have to be turned off BY DEFAULT. Social media companies are responsible for not showing content to minors that promotes suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, tobacco, or alcohol. I think Internet Age Verification…

I am the staffer who cowrote this bill and I appreciate your comment and understanding of it.

Is there a reason not to tweak it slightly so that companies have to assume, unless proven otherwise, that users are children? That way it'll default for everyone here to the "privacy enhanced standards" for lack of a better term and those who want to opt out can be the ones to hand over their identity to the companies?

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#28

Post by red-iron-pine »

ke88y wrote: post #7
thefurdrake wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it sounds great when it's phrased that way. What happens when an American-operated chat platform that provides E2EE claims they can't stop kids from seeing illegal content because of E2EE? All this legislation restricting free flow of information being pushed because "Think Of The Children" is concerning.

I encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long. KOSA requires that social media companies cannot target children with certain types of ads or provide algorithmic recommendations, when they "reasonably know" that the user is a minor. A company implementing E2EE can simply make the choice to either not serve minors or to not provide certain features (algorithmic content targeting, targeted ads) to use…

> I encourage you to read the proposed statute. It's not very long.

That is not a feature. Simple can be VERY dangerous when it comes to laws, since they do not provide nuance.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

-H. L. Mencken

Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet

#29

Post by commoner »

jterrys wrote: post #26

This is a pretty fucking awful bill https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/young-people-should-op... HN is now subject to astroturfers? The comments in here are insane

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/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

Post reply on HN