House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed his support for the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in principle but raised concerns about specific details of the bill. Johnson stated that while he appreciates the overarching goal of the Senate-passed KOSA, he finds certain aspects of the text troubling. He mentioned that a House version of the bill would require revisions to gain approval in the lower chamber.
Johnson’s comments reflect the sentiment that while the intent of KOSA is commendable, some provisions may have unintended consequences. The bill aims to safeguard children from online harms like exploitation and substance abuse by imposing stricter privacy measures and enhancing parental controls. However, critics, including House Republicans like Rep. Steve Scalise, have raised objections to certain elements of the bill, citing concerns about potential censorship and government overreach.
As discussions continue on potential changes to KOSA, its fate in the House remains uncertain. President Joe Biden has expressed support for the bill and indicated his willingness to sign it into law if it passes. The ongoing debate highlights the need for balancing online safety for children with concerns about freedom of speech and government regulation. Platforms would also need to offer minors options to safeguard their information and choose to opt out of personalized recommendations. Parents would have access to new controls to identify harmful behaviors and report them through a dedicated channel to help protect children. Platforms would also be subject to independent audits to evaluate their impact on the well-being of minor users, enabling parents and policymakers to determine if they are taking effective measures to address risks to children.
A parents group in support of the measure expressed in a letter to lawmakers that it has widespread bipartisan backing and should be implemented to safeguard children. The group emphasized the harm inflicted on children and teens by social media companies’ design choices, which result in cyberbullying, sextortion, eating disorders, dangerous viral challenges, mental health issues, suicide, and easy access to fentanyl-laced drugs.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a critic of the measure, has argued that it is more about censorship than safety. The group raised concerns that platforms may adopt a heavy-handed filtering approach due to liability for failing to block harmful content, potentially restricting access to a significant amount of information for minors and extending blocks to legal speech.
Source link
