45 Comments

One risk is that Section 9 of the bill (reproduced below) looks like a Trojan horse for requiring everyone (adults and children) to verify their identity before using social media and other Internet services, as I don’t see how verification of age can be done without requiring everyone to identify themselves a priori. While I can envision ways to do this while maintaining anonymity, I am deeply skeptical that a study conducted by the government would err on the side of user privacy over government access. If ID is required to access social media, this of course would be a great boon to authoritarian regimes everywhere as the ability to dissent anonymously a la Thomas Paine would be largely eliminated if people’s real world ID is tied to every post. Any thoughts on this aspect?

SEC. 9. AGE VERIFICATION STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study.—The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and the Secretary of Commerce, shall conduct a study evaluating the most technologically feasible methods and options for developing systems to verify age at the device or operating system level.

(b) Contents.—Such study shall consider —

(1) the benefits of creating a device or operating system level age verification system;

(2) what information may need to be collected to create this type of age verification system;

(3) the accuracy of such systems and their impact or steps to improve accessibility, including for individuals with disabilities;

(4) how such a system or systems could verify age while mitigating risks to user privacy and data security and safeguarding minors' personal data, emphasizing minimizing the amount of data collected and processed by covered platforms and age verification providers for such a system; and

(5) the technical feasibility, including the need for potential hardware and software changes, including for devices currently in commerce and owned by consumers.

(c) Report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the agencies described in subsection (a) shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under such subsection to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.

Expand full comment

I learned my lesson with the Patriot Act.

Expand full comment

Indeed, it was so Orwellian!

Expand full comment

WELL SAID! While Mr Haidt and Mr Rausch have good intentions and are not wrong about the dangers they seek to have government do that which parents should be doing instead; parenting your child. This BS about every kid (16 and under) needs a smart phone with full access to everything is BS. You can provide kids with a phone that only allows for calling parents and 911. There are other protections parents can enable but don't b/c our society has been conditioned to let government solve every problem.

The patriot act should have been a harsh lesson for all of us but some still haven't learned. It matters less what so called protections they add to the bill b/c what government will do at a later point is revisit this, expand it and when challenged in court they'll find some way to re-define words/meanings or the like so they can alter what is intended. What this bill does is open the door so the Feds at a later time can open it even further and eventually tear the door off it's hinges.

Expand full comment

Thanks again for a great post, captivating writing and tremendous effort you guys put in. Let’s save our kids!

Expand full comment

Yeah, no one has ever used that excuse to justify tyranny before!

Expand full comment

I know, right?

Expand full comment

Nope, passing important legislation in lame duck sessions is inherently suspect. Wait until the new Congress is empaneled, THEN bring the measure up for consideration and, hopefully, passage. That way, you've got accountability for the pols that voted for the measure, meaning its assumptions, promises, and possible downsides will get a fair (and PUBLIC) hearing. No "dark of night" laws, pleas.

Expand full comment

Sent a link to this article to my representative. Thanks!

Expand full comment

With all the online data collection and data centers storing and reviewing it, we already have enough info to prove who’s doing what online. Seems this law is simply a way to gain approval and give consent to 24/7 surveillance which is already in place.

Expand full comment

Indeed, we need to read between the lines.

Expand full comment

What are your thoughts on the EFF's objections to even this latest version of the bill? I would still rather KOSA than some of the more restrictive ideas out there, and I thought the biggest flaws had been fixed recently, but now I am not so sure. Please clarify, thanks!

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/12/xs-last-minute-update-kids-online-safety-act-still-fails-protect-kids-or-adults

Expand full comment

I see some have yet to learn the harsh lesson that the Patriot Act should have taught them by now. While well meaning you are pushing for government to do what parents should be doing and having government solve your problems for you is a very dangerous slippery slope. I have 2 kids and when not yet adults they had smart phones and we made sure they couldn't use them when they weren't supposed to and restrict what they could use them for and all without the help of the Federal government. Something does need to be done about TikTok but not by the government.

We're lucky Johnson killed this even though he probably did it for reasons other than claimed. We know Congress is plagued with corruption and that those with money, large campaign donors, are able to purchase legislation as well as pay to have something killed they don't want passed.

Expand full comment

Everyone on this site, including Jonathan Haidt, surely realizes by now that the case for KOSA collapsed months ago, when the CDC's definitive 2023 survey and new analyses showed social media is NOT any kind of major threat to teenagers' mental health -- and may actually help deter teens' suicides and other risks. Teens are more depressed today because of parents' and adults' abuses and domestic troubles, including rising grownup addiction and violence.

Social media has proven a refuge for abused teens, particularly girls, who are much more likely to go online frequently than non-abused teens. KOSA endangers teens by restricting younger ages from connective platforms, demanding detailed personal information ripe for exploitation, and requiring consent from parents whose abuses and troubles the most vulnerable teenagers go online to ameliorate. I urge all of you to carefully analyze the 2023 CDC YRBS survey of 20,000 teens, the first to ask detailed and realistic questions, and to ask why this site never discusses the crucial realities the CDC survey, analyses, and emerging scientific research is detailing. https://mikemales.substack.com/publish/home?utm_source=menu

Expand full comment

Why not pass a law with all the benefits of the law going to EVERY USER independent of age? I know social media addicted/harmed adults of all ages too.

The age verification is the slippery slope to digital ID and the collection of even more information by these platforms by default/law. Name, birthday, address, which must be verified/real. This will undoubtedly lead to harms as well - how many letters do we all get offering a free year of credit monitoring services due to our information being hacked? Including many hospitals/doctor offices supposedly being protected by government HIPPA laws, yet private medical info is hacked all the time too thanks to electronic medical records making it so easy.

Digital ID leads us to Central Bank Digital Currency which is so dangerous and horribly implemented (ask India) that it makes this bill undesirable to many. CBDC is an absolute dream of tyrannical regimes, and a nightmare for regular people. It is the ultimate form of government control and the end of freedoms as we know them today.

Expand full comment

The EFF has the right idea:

https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms

But neither the control freaks nor Big Tech will be too keen on that, of course.

Expand full comment

Social media platforms, as they currently exist, are defective by design. Perhaps we should simply "quarantine" them for ALL ages until the companies that run them fix the defects to an acceptable standard?

Expand full comment

Hmmm….Meta is investing in Louisiana….and Johnson and Scalise are blocking the bill from coming up for a vote.

I am absolutely certain those 2 things are mere coincidences and have no causal relationship whatsoever 😂.

Expand full comment

You know what the issue I have with this is, we are demanding that the Government do what parents should be doing, we are abdicating more responsibility to the Government

That is not the purpose of the Government, the idea of "safety" has been corrupted and pushed to its limits, the matter of fact is that LIFE IS DANGEROUS, I understand some regulations are purposeful and do some good but this needs to stop

Tell our kids NO and deal with it

Expand full comment

So what's the role of Government when it learns that the liability shield that it provided to launch an economy 30 years ago has been weaponized/abused to secretely addict and trap (not just) WE THE PEOPLE in a product that makes you a self-agrandizing experience seeker and responsibilities escapist, seriously harm basic rights, cognitive abilities, psychological health, entire communities cohesion and that of their children? Look the other way? Is this what American Democracy can teach to the Western Countries it leads? Is it ok that "we the people" is replaced by "we the people subtly and skilfyully manipulated by Big Tech with the help of algo, bots and fake accounts" ? Isn't it dangerous that they made The REAL World Observable reality and citizens will irrelevant? MILLIONS OF KIDS ARE BLEEDING, WE MUST ACT NOW!

Expand full comment

As for the liability shield, there is a big difference between reforming Section 230 (which I am fine with, depending on how it is done) versus outright repeal (which would throw out the baby with the bathwater and force a false choice between either 1) having a chilling effect on free speech or 2) no moderation whatsoever and turn it into an even worse cesspool).

Expand full comment

Thank you for your comments like many in here THEY help ne refine my thoughts. Since I have been on this substack I keep hearings people freaking out about Freedom of Speech.

I start thinking many fell in Big Tech trap. Maybe you should look around what this reducing this huge tech issue to a freedom of speech conversation (conveniently exported across the Planet) has turned the world into.

If Freedom of speech ONLINE has turned into the iceberg of the Titanic, maybe you could pause and reframe the conversation because the US/world Titanic Is sinking and you seem to care mostly about protecting the iceberg. Just an outsider view. From a country who , before social media invaded our minds and souls, knew that all fundamental rights are equally important. This podcast Is useful to understand the true intentions of the architects of present Chaos - https://www.techpolicy.press/dissecting-tech-manifestos/

Expand full comment

“And then, after all that work and all that support, the House leadership kills the bill without giving any believable justification.”

Did the Speaker state his objections before or after November 5? I'm not American, but I suspect he is surveying the state of play. Of course, Meta pork-barrelling his district is also an interesting coincidence.

Expand full comment

Hold information providers liable for damages. He who issues a command that causes harm is liable for damages. If you read that you can jump off a cliff and suffer no injury then you do just that and are harmed, the person providing the information is liable. (An algorithm is a person). Can the person remedy the damages they caused? IDK. That doesn’t change the fact that they’re liable. Forget about FCC, and USCODE. Natural law is clear, the one who causes harm is liable for restitution.

Expand full comment

Merely posting or retweeting that vaccines are safe and effective makes you liable for damages done by vaccines. It’s simple, and it’s natural law, and it’s actionable.

Expand full comment

There is also such a thing as "caveat emptor", or "caveat lector" in this case.

To ignore that is to infantilize everyone.

Expand full comment