[HN Gopher] Don't fall for the latest changes to the dangerous K...
___________________________________________________________________
Don't fall for the latest changes to the dangerous Kids Online
Safety Act
Author : leotravis10
Score : 42 points
Date : 2024-02-20 20:18 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.eff.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org)
| freedomben wrote:
| IANAL, but I wish they had put this bullet closer to the top,
| although I agree the logical flow does have it more appropriately
| at the bottom.
|
| > _Adults in any of these groups who are unwilling to share their
| identities will find themselves shunted onto a second-class
| internet alongside the young people who have been denied access
| to this information._
|
| This is what I wish people would understand. It doesn't just
| protect kids from dangerous information. It flips the assumption
| of age on it's head.
|
| You're no longer assumed to be an adult on the internet, you're
| assumed to be a child. If you want to be treated as an adult, you
| have to "show" your ID, and this is not a cashier selling beer at
| the gas station. This will include the least trustworthy data-
| hoarding internet marketers who don't give a damn about your
| privacy. They will view your ID verification as data that can be
| used for marketing campaigns and sold to other people. They will
| probably be glad if this law passes because of the cover it gives
| them to invade your privacy even more.
| quasse wrote:
| Full text of the new version of the bill can be found here:
| https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/21424kosabil...
|
| I am reading though the bill right now and do not have quite the
| same takeaway that the EFF is promoting. Sec 102 specifically
| exempts platforms from limiting "any minor from deliberately and
| independently searching for, or specifically requesting,
| content". This seems to neuter a lot of the pushback that the
| bill will prevent youth from searching for sexual health,
| minority status, LGBTQ+ information.
|
| I think a lot of platforms are upset that they won't be able to
| push this type of content algorithmically (see the prevalence of
| "mental-health-tok", "5 signs that you have ADHD" videos) but I
| am *very* skeptical that this type of content is healthy for
| anyone. I think it drives a ton of engagement which large
| platforms don't want to lose.
|
| My main beef with KOSA is that a bunch of the meat of the rules
| and enforcement (Sec 106 - Sec 109) is completely punted on. Lots
| of "Not later than 18 months after the enactment of this act" the
| FTC will "issue guidance" or create rules for various things. It
| seems like Congress doesn't quite know what they want to
| regulate, but they want someone (who isn't them) to do so.
| kmbfjr wrote:
| Well isn't that cute. Congress wants an administrative law
| solution but refuses to codify protections for other
| administrative law divisions like the EPA.
| paulddraper wrote:
| I've read this article multiple times, but I still don't
| understand the core legal claim.
|
| What's the case for the First Amendment not allowing KOSA?
|
| What makes KOSA different from constitutional obscenity/indecency
| laws?
|
| Thanks for helping me understand.
| leotravis10 wrote:
| This Techdirt piece from Mike Masnick describes a bit more
| detail: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/15/senator-blumenthal-
| prete...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-20 23:01 UTC)