{"id":14842,"date":"2025-12-15T09:21:07","date_gmt":"2025-12-15T16:21:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/?p=14842"},"modified":"2025-12-15T09:21:07","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T16:21:07","slug":"house-lawmakers-unite-in-moral-panic-advancing-18-kids-online-safety-bills-that-expand-surveillance-and-weaken-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/2025\/12\/15\/house-lawmakers-unite-in-moral-panic-advancing-18-kids-online-safety-bills-that-expand-surveillance-and-weaken-privacy\/","title":{"rendered":"House Lawmakers Unite in Moral Panic, Advancing 18 \u201cKids\u2019 Online Safety\u201d Bills That Expand Surveillance and Weaken Privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

So it would appear this whole movement for protecting kids online is all about digital ID, as they’ll make this such a mess they’re hoping people will go for their digital ID. I’ve been ignoring the Satanic 764 group material as it seemed suspicious at best, but Adam Curry of The No Agenda Show<\/em><\/a> rightly identified this as part of the digital ID psyop while playing these news clips on the show. And throw in the FBI being involved, definitely a psyop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nightline 764.mp3<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/reclaimthenet.org\/house-committee-advances-kids-online-safety-bills<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
Lawmakers spent the day chasing safety by expanding surveillance, proving that in Washington, nothing unites faster than fear of the internet.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By Christina Maas<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Stylized<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade spent its latest markup hearing on Thursday proving that if there\u2019s one bipartisan passion left in Washington, it\u2019s moral panic about the internet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eighteen separate bills on \u201ckids\u2019 online safety\u201d were debated, amended, and then promptly advanced to the full committee. Not one was stopped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D)<\/strong> set the tone early, describing the bills as \u201cterribly inadequate\u201d and announcing she was \u201cfurious.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She complained that the package \u201cleaves out the big issues that we are fighting for.\u201d If it\u2019s not clear, Schakowsky is complaining that the already-controversial bills don\u2019t go far enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eighteen bills now move forward, eight of which hinge on some form of age verification, which would likely require showing a government ID. Three: App Store Accountability (H.R. 3149), the SCREEN Act (H.R. 1623), and the Parents Over Platforms Act (H.R. 6333), would require it outright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other five rely on what lawmakers call the \u201cactual knowledge\u201d or \u201cwillful disregard\u201d standards, which sound like legalese but function as a dare to platforms: either know everyone\u2019s age, or risk a lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The safest corporate response, of course, would be to treat everyone as a child until they\u2019ve shown ID.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Frank Pallone (D)<\/strong> was pleased that the Safer GAMING Act (H.R. 6265) has become bipartisan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill targets online video games and would give the FTC authority to investigate or sue companies that \u201cact in willful disregard\u201d of a user\u2019s age.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pallone also raised concerns that KOSA<\/a> and COPPA 2.0<\/a>, not because of the surveillance and censorship concerns but because they could \u201cforever close the door on greater state protection for kids,\u201d pointing out that they could override even stronger state laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even while praising some of the bills, Pallone offered the bare minimum of concern about \u201cbills that mandate third-party access to children\u2019s data or require an adult or kid to provide additional sensitive data like a government ID or biometrics before they can access content, send a message, or download an app.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D)<\/strong> dismissed the whole bundle as \u201cpurely lip service and the weakest attempts at keeping people safe online.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Darren Soto (D)<\/strong>, meanwhile, cited Florida\u2019s own social media law as a model, praising its ban on anyone under 14 and parental consent rules for those under 16. That law is currently under heavy legal scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Neal Dunn<\/strong> (R)<\/strong> promoted the Safe Messaging for Kids Act with a bit of old-fashioned frontier imagery, saying his bill \u201cputs an end to this Wild West sort of situation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bill\u2019s focus is on \u201cdisappearing messages,\u201d which Dunn thinks predators depend on. In reality, the legislation would likely mean platforms keeping more records for longer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (D)<\/strong> started like a man eager to show his listening credentials. \u201cTo the parents who have shared their stories, we heard you, and we will continue to hear you, and these changes were a direct result of your testimony to us,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That declaration came after Republicans reworked bill language, driven more by emotion than logic, following what they described as a week of heartfelt talks with parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result is a package stripped of one of its more contested parts, the so-called \u201cduty of care\u201d requirement that forced platforms to \u201cexercise reasonable care\u201d to prevent harm to minors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its place, the new text simply asks companies to \u201cestablish and enforce reasonable policies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats immediately objected, arguing that the weaker standard effectively legalizes corporate shrugs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their frustration grew sharper over the inclusion of language preempting state laws. For Democrats, this meant years of local experimentation in online safety could be erased by a one-size-fits-all federal fix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That same issue has already shadowed the Children and Teens\u2019 Online Privacy Protection Act, which would expand COPPA to cover teenagers under 17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The state-versus-federal tension has become one of the defining battles in digital regulation, a clash between lawmakers who want to lead and those who want to control the leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sen. Ed Markey, the Senate sponsor of COPPA 2.0, released a statement condemning the House version\u2019s retreat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cToday\u2019s partisan vote on COPPA 2.0 is further evidence that House Republicans have unnecessarily set back a multi-year, bipartisan process to protect children and teens online,\u201d he said, calling the House edits a \u201cweakening of COPPA 2.0 on behalf of Big Tech.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He urged Republicans to \u201creturn to the strong, bipartisan language in the Senate bill.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rep. Kathy Castor (D)<\/strong> tried to keep the tone conciliatory. \u201cI didn\u2019t come in with my hair on fire today,\u201d she said, before explaining that she wanted to restore the \u201cstrong, bipartisan version\u201d that previously cleared the committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her call for \u201cintestinal fortitude\u201d to protect families was meant to rally cooperation, but it mostly highlighted how far the process has drifted from unity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outside the committee room, Joann Bogard of ParentsSOS, whose son Mason died after reportedly participating in a online \u201cchoking challenge,\u201d issued a warning of her own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She thanked lawmakers for listening but said, \u201cIf the House version of KOSA is not significantly strengthened, we will have no choice but to oppose it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parent groups like hers have become a driving force behind the legislative rush, their moral authority often serving as both shield and sword for policymakers eager to be seen as responsive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bogard\u2019s remarks also pointed to the broader political logic at work. The more Big Tech resists, the stronger the call for something resembling Australia\u2019s new approach, which simply bans kids under sixteen from major platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That model, now in testing, has become the new fantasy of frustrated lawmakers who prefer a clean prohibition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the subcommittee sent its full slate of bills forward, it did so under a familiar political spell, the conviction that a louder promise to \u201cprotect kids\u201d can drown out every unresolved contradiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of fearing government surveillance, they\u2019re demanding it, pushing for legislation that would make more data collection inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now that all 18 bills have advanced, the full House Energy & Commerce Committee will take its turn to edit, approve, or reject them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If approved, the next stage would be the committee report and eventual consideration on the House floor. The odds of at least some of these bills becoming law are rising, mostly because, free speech and privacy be damned, no one in Washington wants to be seen voting against \u201cprotecting kids.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So it would appear this whole movement for protecting kids online is all about digital ID, as they’ll make this such a mess they’re hoping people will go for their digital ID. I’ve been ignoring the Satanic 764 group material as it seemed suspicious at best, but Adam Curry of The No Agenda Show rightly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tech","category-world"],"blocksy_meta":[],"featured_image_src":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Jason","author_link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/author\/jturning\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14842"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14845,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14842\/revisions\/14845"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}