The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) easily passed the Senate today despite critics’ concerns that the bill may risk creating more harm than good for kids and perhaps censor speech for online users of all ages if it’s signed into law.
KOSA received broad bipartisan support in the Senate, passing with a 91–3 vote alongside the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Action (COPPA) 2.0. Both laws seek to control how much data can be collected from minors, as well as regulate the platform features that could harm children’s mental health.
However, while child safety advocates have heavily pressured lawmakers to pass KOSA, critics, including hundreds of kids, have continued to argue that it should be blocked.
Among them is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argues that “the House of Representatives must vote no on this dangerous legislation.”
If not, potential risks to kids include threats to privacy (by restricting access to encryption, for example), reduced access to vital resources, and reduced access to speech that impacts everyone online, the ACLU has alleged.
The ACLU recently staged a protest of more than 300 students on Capitol Hill to oppose KOSA’s passage. Attending the protest was 17-year-old Anjali Verma, who criticized lawmakers for ignoring kids who are genuinely concerned that the law would greatly limit their access to resources online.
“We live on the Internet, and we are afraid that important information we’ve accessed all our lives will no longer be available,” Verma said. “We need lawmakers to listen to young people when making decisions that affect us.”
Like all bills with “kids” or “children” in the name, it doesn’t have anything to do with kids and everything to do with violating our rights.
I believe the way it’s presented makes it difficult to vote against—you don’t want to be labeled as someone who is enabling the pedos.
Seems like most legislation (in American in the past 40 or so years) is labeled to sound like a good thing, then you read it and it’s the exact opposite of what it pretends to be
It’s named as attack ad bait. “So-and-so voted against the Kids Online Safety Act” sounds bad to the uninformed voter, and there are a lot of uninformed voters.
PATRIOT act, anyone?
That’s how these acts are labeled to trick voters like you and me, but thankfully in a representative democracy we have highly trained elected officials looking out for our values and reading the fine print so they don’t get caught by these silly simple title traps. Right?
Any time a lawmaker says they are doing something “for the children” you are being played. They are always up to something sh*tty.
It’s literally never about the children. When they say it’s for the children it’s because they’re looking to lock in some crazy unpopular authoritarian bullshit and prevent any argument because who’s going to argue against protecting children?
Children are legally basically slaves in the US (of their parents, or if they get married, of their spouse). They are almost never granted more power for themselves or more freedoms. Most “for the children” rhetoric tends to advocate for removing even more of their freedoms and power. It’s really really sad.
Giving kids the right to vote would be a start in the right direction. No taxation without representation, and we have child actors and performers paying millions in taxes. They deserve representation. Maybe they’d change the laws so their parents (owners) weren’t legally entitled to their money.
Giving kids the right to vote would be a start in the right direction.
I worry about that. More “Liberal” parents might care what their child believes, but hierarchy obsessed conservatives will tell their children who to vote for as they’re “supposed” to always do what their parents say no matter what and without question.
Also just noticed, and love your username lol
Jesus fucking Christ we are still trying to roll this square up a fucking hill aren’t we?
Bill doesn’t pass? Try it again in a few months or years.
Rinse. Repeat.
I’m so fucking tired of the stupid shit my tax money is wasted on.
I feel gross agreeing with Rand fucking Paul about something.
Pretty sure he just votes against government doing anything. I doubt he’s much of it.
That would be a consistent position of a principled Republican, almost extinct species.
Consistently douchey is still consistent, yes.
I think this vote proves that the easy flow of information is what those in power want to prevent. Can’t make money with people being too well informed.
lol and it uses the DSM, which is intended to be heavily moderated by an expert’s judgement every step of the way?
American “democracy” is a complete joke and the only reason it’s been allowed to continue like this is because people are apathetic cowards.
Apathetic cowards are why it’s a joke. It’d work a lot better with more participation.
deleted by creator
Do you know how the GDPR is a European thing, but since the Internet is global it affects everyone and we all get those little cookie consent boxes now no matter where on Earth you live?
KOSA is the same, but way worse.
You don’t get cookie check boxes because of GDPR. You’re getting them because companies want to track you, and need to ask if they do so.
If they don’t want to steal your private info they don’t need cookie check boxes, even under GDPR.
Additionally, those shitty checkboxes, that take 1000 clicks and 5 minutes if you don’t want to get tracked? Illegal under GDPR. Rejected getting tacked needs to be “as easy” as getting tracked by GDPR law.
Companies hating their tracking data business going away like to shit on GDPR - and if it’s repeated frequently enough peopme believe it.
(Btw Kosa sounds really dangerous in itself, I’m not advocating for that)
and need to ask if they do so.
Because of the GDPR…
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but it’s not actually an argument against what I said, you’re just throwing a tantrum because I made a good point that didn’t validate your narrative about laws that affect the Internet.
I’m not trying to argue against you, I’m just trying to rally people against crappy business tactics.
Thanks for the personal attack, though.
