The Kids Online Safety Act, a controversial piece of legislation, is set to face a crucial vote in the Senate this week, as announced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.). This bipartisan bill, ostensibly designed to protect minors online, has sparked intense debate and criticism from various quarters due to its potential to significantly curtail free speech and privacy on the internet for all users.
At the heart of KOSA lies the creation of a duty of care for a broad spectrum of digital companies. This duty would apply to any online platform, online video game, messaging application, or video streaming service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor. The bill mandates these companies to protect minors from exposure to a wide array of harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, suicidal behaviors, excessive online usage, physical violence, harassment, online bullying, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, promotion of gambling, alcohol, drugs, or tobacco, and predatory, unfair, or deceptive marketing practices, or other financial harms.
Critics argue that the implementation of such a broad mandate would force companies to either drastically censor all users' speech or implement stringent age verification processes, effectively ending online anonymity. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been vocal in its opposition, stating that This internet censorship bill will impact everyone who uses social media. The organization has collected testimonies from thousands of young people who do not support KOSA, arguing that it will censor the internet without effectively helping them.
The potential for KOSA to be used as a tool for advancing specific political agendas is a significant concern. Opponents worry that the bill could be weaponized against a range of issues, including abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, second-amendment rights, sex worker rights, and even language deemed disrespectful by progressives. The fact that the Federal Trade Commission, composed of political appointees, would be responsible for enforcing KOSA adds to these concerns.
Paradoxically, KOSA might hinder rather than help young people seeking information about the very issues it aims to address. Aaron Mackey, a lawyer with the EFF, told NPR that the bill removes the ability for teens and children to find information when they are experiencing the very sort of health problems and other problems that KOSA is trying to address. This could lead to the blocking of helpful and supportive content related to mental health, sexuality, and addiction.
The bill's requirements for age verification and parental controls have also raised alarms. Shoshana Weissmann, digital director and fellow at the R Street Institute, points out that KOSA forces companies to tie parent to child social media accounts and the only way to do that is age and identity verification. This requirement comes in the wake of recent security breaches involving identity verification systems, raising serious privacy concerns.
Critics from across the political spectrum have voiced their opposition to KOSA. Senator Rand Paul (R–Ky.) highlighted the bill's inconsistencies, noting that it could prevent kids from watching certain content on social media due to gambling and beer ads, while these same ads would be freely available on television. Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, went further, suggesting that KOSA is more about politicians claiming to protect children ahead of elections rather than actually safeguarding minors online. The Freedom of the Press Foundation has urged lawmakers to reject KOSA, describing it as a form of censorship hidden behind the mantle of child protection.
