Is this related to the "Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act" that popped up today? This is so confusing
Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#32This 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 disenfranchise…
Also what I find this bill infurating is that groups such as the Heritage Foundation have openly stated out loud that KOSA, if passed will allow them to censor content they deem unsuitable for young people, which would include LGBTQ content. (1)
(1) https://www.readtpa.com/p/congress-is-about-to-pass-a-very
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You seem to be referring to Section 3(a)(1), which requires websites to "prevent and mitigate" the following for people under 18:
> (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...
Can you please explain how you expect websites to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression without censoring large swaths of content that any adult would find acceptable?
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#34Earlier 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,…
> 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/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.
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Believe me: I have the same concern. Sec. 3(6)(b)(1) satisfactorily addresses my concerns. Platforms do not need to prevent minors from accessing materials that they are specifically seeking out. Also, the set of "mental health disorders" are specifically enumerated in Sec. 3(a)(1) and do not include any trans-specific medical issues, and includes the language "consistent with evidence-informed medical information" p…
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
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.
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I guess that's one way to justify having strong opinions about bills without having to actually read the text.
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me: I have the same concern. Sec. 3(6)(b)(1) satisfactorily addresses my concerns. Platforms do not need to prevent minors from accessing materials that they are specifically seeking out. Also, the set of "mental health disorders" are specifically enumerated in Sec. 3(a)(1) and do not include any trans-specific medical issues, and includes the language "consistent with evidence-informed medical information" p…
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 Section 3(a)(1) does not specifically list trans issues, but it does list anxiety and depression as two condit…
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.
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#38This 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
[deleted]
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#39This 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
The EFF complaints are specious FUD.
There are many VERY simple ways to comply with KOSA that don't involve censorship, most of which boil down to "don't make your money by using weaponized human psychology on children".
Does the bill make it harder for Meta to monetize and juice engagement amount the under-17 population? Absolutely. The job of Meta becomes much more difficult. They'll survive.
> astroturfers
I don't have any particular stake in this matter. I'm just sharing my opinion, as I do on many topics on this site, and sometimes I disagree with the Usent-cum-Slashdot-cum-HN hivemind.
It couldn't possibly be that there exist real humans who think that subjecting children to social media content recommendation algorithms is, in fact, probably a bad idea.
It couldn't possibly be the case that a bill with FORTY TWO co-sponsors -- damn close to half the chamber, and split equally between both parties -- is actually supported by a single real world human.
No. Must be astroturfing.
In the case of online safety for children, I think this corner of tech subculture has some deep-seated brainrot.
Or perhaps it's just that those sweet Meta RSUs have appreciated a lot and not yet vested...
Re: Senate panel advances bills to childproof the internet
#40This 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 disenfranchise…
You have misunderstood several aspects of this law.
> 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".
The law specifically excludes sites that are not predominantly user-generated content. So if you are running a website about trans issues that is not predominantly user-generated content, KOSA does not apply, even if you are running that site for-profit.
The law specifically excludes sites that are not run for-profit. So if you are running a non-profit forum for trans kids to discuss trans issue, KOSA does not apply.
The law specifically excludes websites of educational institutions, so if you are child development professor or academically affiliated doctor at a for-profit university running a for-profit forum for trans kids to discuss trans issues, KOSA does not apply.
I also argue -- vehemently -- that the first two cases (not user-generated, and/or not for-profit) are exactly the type of websites children should be seeking out for information on sensitive issues.
Even if this law resulted in AGs banning trans content -- which I find extraordinarily unlikely because there are far simpler legal theories and state AGs abusing KOSA this badly can many other statutes that require less legal contortion -- it wouldn't apply to by far the most valuable sources of information and community.
> It is ridiculous to expect a website to censor any content that can induce anxiety or depression
Indeed it is.
> which is what the bill requires
No it does not.
Food distributors have to take reasonable measures to ensure that they do not sell spoiled or tainted food. Food poisoning still happens.
Auto manufacturers have to take reasonable measures to ensure cars protect occupants in case of collision. People still die in car crashes.
The bill requires reasonable measures taken in design and operation of social media platforms.
The intent here is that it should be illegal for Meta to juice under-17 engagement by algorithmically boosting content that leads to "doom scrolling", and the wording of the statute is designed to limit scope to that intent.
This really is a bill about for-profit weaponization of human psychology against minors.
To be blunt: the public, including me, are fed up with Meta/YT's for-profit algorithmic manipulation of children.
Free speech existed before Meta started printing billions by getting kids addicted to social media, and will continue to exist after.