The Senate has overwhelmingly passed a series of bills ostensibly aimed at protecting children from harmful online content. The measure is designed to compel social media companies to make significant changes to their platforms to shield children from abuse, but could easily lead to more problems.
The two bills are the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). The measures would impose new rules and regulations dictating how tech companies handle minors’ data and the features that are available to them.
The bills, championed by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), mandate proactive steps to safeguard minors online.
Companies will be required to adopt a “duty of care” approach to minor users. They must ensure that their default settings prioritize safety for younger users. This includes taking steps to prevent bullying, promote healthy behaviors, and block access to harmful content.
Sen. Blumenthal asserted that the legislation would send the message to Big Tech that “we no longer trust you to make decisions for us.”
The legislation will also require companies to do more to protect children’s personal information while restricting targeted advertising to minors. Social media platforms will also have to grant parents more control over their children’s online activities.
The legislation passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, but there are already indications that it will face fierce opposition from Big Tech companies and free speech advocates who argue that it violates the Constitution.
“KOSA fails to meet basic constitutional principles and fails parents because it won’t make a single child safer online or address their concerns,” said Carl Szabo, vice president and counsel for NetChoice, in a statement. He also asserted that requiring guardians to provide platforms with their children’s personal information is “both dangerous and a violation of their rights.”
The measures are also facing backlash from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Chamber of Progress. A letter signed by these three organizations warns that it could be used to target LGBTQ content and other marginalized communities.
This is one of those legislative proposals that sounds good on paper but could lead to troubling outcomes.
Some of the provisions in the bills could infringe on free speech rights. The EFF argued that KOSA would give too much power to state attorneys general, especially with the broad definition of “harmful content.” This could be manipulated to target specific groups or political opinions.
Indeed, if the state has the power to define what “harmful” means, then it is not hard to imagine the slippery slope that could materialize, especially in blue states that relish the idea of using government power to suppress opposing viewpoints.
There are also privacy issues. The bills’ requirement for providing children’s personal information could put them at risk by centralizing sensitive information that could be exploited. It could also increase surveillance of children’s online activities.
These measures could easily become yet another piece of nanny state legislation that would grant the state more power over content on digital platforms. There is far too much room for this power to be abused by authoritarian actors in the government.
Blumenthal and his colleagues might not trust Big Tech to safeguard children, but why the heck should we entrust the state with this responsibility? The reality is that it is up to parents to make sure their children are being protected, not the government. These proposals are just another way to usurp parental authority and responsibility while making it easier for the government to regulate online platforms.
The bottom line is that parents are the ones who should be protecting their children from harmful content, not the state. These proposals carry far too many risks – especially for a solution that won’t actually address the problem.