What’s interesting is they want to limit what kids are exposed to online, but look at what they expose kids to at school and from our supposedly elected leaders. You have to conclude this would be to limit people exposing children to truth that counteracts what they’re getting from official government sources. I’ll postulate that Satan is desperate to get a hold of children and lower the age of accountability because the rapture is quickly approaching and all the children not yet accountable will be extracted with the church. Just look at what the WHO representing Satan’s globalist elite want to implement worldwide. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe WHO lays out its reason for teaching children aged 0-6 the detail of biological reproduction \u2013 that is, children who are still young enough to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. By age 6, the WHO wants the education industry \u2013 and presumably their teachers \u2013 to expose children to the concepts of intercourse, masturbation, and pornography. By age 9, they are expected to reach an \u2018adult\u2019 knowledge of sex including teaching of masturbation and viewing of online pornography. At age 12 \u2013 remembering that we are still talking about young children \u2013 the WHO wishes the official European education course to explore political and emotional responses to sex, puberty, and gender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Starting sex education at birth is an indication of the mindset of these people. 0-4 year-olds should be able to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual sexual interaction and develop a \u2018positive attitude\u2019 to the different sexual lifestyles of adults.<\/p>\nhttps:\/\/www.spectator.com.au\/2023\/05\/children-targeted-by-who-standards-for-sexuality-education-in-europe\/<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.eff.org\/deeplinks\/2023\/05\/kids-online-safety-act-still-huge-danger-our-rights-online?utm_source=EFFector<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n
<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\nCongress has resurrected the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)<\/a>, a bill that would increase surveillance and restrict access to information in the name of protecting children online. KOSA was introduced in 2022 but failed to gain traction, and today its authors, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), have reintroduced it with slight modifications. Though some of these changes were made in response to over 100<\/a> civil society organizations and LGBTQ+ rights groups\u2019 criticisms of the bill, its latest version is still troubling. Today\u2019s version of KOSA would still require surveillance of anyone sixteen and under. It would put the tools of censorship in the hands of state attorneys general, and would greatly endanger the rights, and safety, of young people online. And KOSA\u2019s burdens will affect adults, too, who will likely face hurdles to accessing legal content online as a result of the bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
KOSA Still Requires Filtering and Blocking of Legal Speech<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Online child safety is a complex issue, but KOSA attempts to boil it down to a single solution. The bill holds platforms liable if their designs and services do not \u201cprevent and mitigate\u201d a list of societal ills: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, physical violence, online bullying and harassment, sexual exploitation and abuse, and suicidal behaviors. Additionally, platforms would be responsible for patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Deciding what designs or services lead to these problems would primarily be left up to the Federal Trade Commission and 50 individual state attorneys general to decide. Ultimately, this puts platforms that serve young people in an impossible situation: without clear guidance regarding what sort of design or content might lead to these harms, they would likely censor any <\/em>discussions that could make them liable. To be clear: though the bill\u2019s language is about \u201cdesigns and services,\u201d the designs of a platform are not causing eating disorders. As a result, KOSA would make platforms liable for the content they show minors, full stop. It will be based on vague requirements that any Attorney General could, more or less, make up. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attorneys General Would Decide What Content is Dangerous To Young People<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
KOSA\u2019s co-author, Sen. Blackburn of Tennessee, has referred to education about race discrimination as \u201cdangerous for kids<\/a>.\u201d Many states have agreed, and recently moved to limit public education about the history of race<\/a>, gender, and sexuality<\/a> discrimination. If KOSA passes, platforms are likely to preemptively block conversations that discuss these topics, as well as discussions about substance use, suicide, and eating disorders. As we\u2019ve written in our previous commentary on the bill<\/a>, KOSA could result in loss of access to information that a majority of people would agree is not dangerous. Again, issues like substance abuse, eating disorders, and depression are complex societal issues, and there is not clear agreement on their causes or their solutions. To pick just one example<\/a>: in some communities, safe injection sites are seen as part of a solution to substance abuse; in others, they are seen as part of the problem. Under KOSA, could a platform be sued for displaying content about them\u2014or about needle exchanges, naloxone, or other harm reduction techniques? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The latest version of KOSA tries, but ultimately fails, to address this problem in two ways: first, by clarifying that the bill shouldn\u2019t stop a platform or its users from \u201cproviding resources for the prevention or mitigation\u201d of its listed harms; and second, by adding that claims under the law should be consistent with evidence-informed medical information. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately, were an Attorney General to claim that content about trans healthcare (for example) poses risks to minors\u2019 health, they would have no shortage of \u2018evidence-informed’ medical information on which to base their assertion. Numerous states have laws on the books claiming that gender-affirming care for trans youth is child abuse. In an article for the American Conservative<\/em> titled \u201cHow Big Tech Turns Kids Trans<\/a>,\u201d the authors point to numerous studies that indicate gender-affirming care is dangerous, despite leading medical groups recognizing the medical necessity<\/a> of treatments for gender dysphoria. In the same article, the authors laud KOSA, which would prohibit \u201ccontent that poses risks to minors\u2019 physical and mental health.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The same issue exists on both sides of the political spectrum. KOSA is ambiguous enough that an Attorney General who wanted to censor content regarding gun ownership, or Christianity, could argue that it has harmful effects on young people.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
KOSA Would Still Lead to Age Verification On Platforms<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Another change to KOSA comes in response to concerns that the law would lead to age verification requirements for platforms. For a platform to know whether or not it is liable for its impact on minors, it must, of course, know whether or not minors use its platform, and who they are. Age verification mandates create many issues<\/a> \u2014 in particular, they undermine anonymity by requiring all users to upload identity verification documentation and share private data, no matter their age. Other types of \u201cage assurance\u201d tools such as age estimation also require users to upload biometric information such as their photos, and have accuracy issues. Ultimately, no method is sufficiently reliable, offers complete coverage of the population, and has respect for the protection of individuals’ data and privacy and their security. France\u2019s National Commission on Informatics and Liberty, CNIL, reached this conclusion in a recent analysis of current age verification methods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In response to these concerns, KOSA\u2019s authors have made two small changes, but they\u2019re unlikely to stop platforms from implementing age verification. Earlier versions would have held platforms liable if they \u201cknew or should have known\u201d that an impacted user was sixteen years of age or younger. The latest version of KOSA adds \u201creasonableness\u201d to this requirement, holding platforms liable if they \u201cknow or reasonably<\/em> should know\u201d a user is a minor. But legally speaking, this doesn’t result in giving platforms any better guidance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The second change is to add explicit language that age verification is not required under the \u201cPrivacy Protections\u201d section of the bill. The bill now states that a covered platform is not required to implement an age gating or<\/em> age verification functionality. But there is essentially no outcome where sites don\u2019t implement age verification. There\u2019s no way for platforms to block nebulous categories of content for minors without explicitly requiring age verification. If a 16-year-old user truthfully identifies herself, the law will hold platforms liable, unless they filter and block content. If a 16-year-old user identifies herself as an adult, and the platform does not use age verification, then it will still be held liable, because it should have \u201creasonably known\u201d the user\u2019s age. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A platform could, alternatively, skip age verification and simply institute blocking and filtering of certain types of content for all users regardless of age\u2014which would be a terrible blow for speech online for everyone. So despite these bandaids on the bill, it still leaves platforms with no choices except to institute heavy-handed censorship and age verification requirements. These impacts would affect not just young people, but every user of the platform. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There Are Better Ways to Fix The Internet<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
While we appreciate that lawmakers have responded to concerns raised about the bill, its main requirements\u2014that platforms must \u201cprevent and mitigate\u201d complex issues that researchers don\u2019t even agree the platforms are responsible for<\/a> in the first place\u2014will lead to a more siloed, and more censored, internet. We also stand by our previous criticisms of KOSA<\/a>\u2014that it unreasonably buckets all young people into a single category, and that it requires surveillance of minors by parents. They remain troubling aspects of the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no question that some elements of social media today are toxic to users. Companies want users to spend as much time on their platforms as possible, because they make money from targeted ad sales, and these ad sales are fueled by invasive data collection. EFF has long supported stronger competition laws<\/a> and comprehensive data privacy legislation<\/a> in part because they can open the field to competitors to today\u2019s social media options, and force platforms to innovate, offering more user choice. If users are unhappy with the content or design of current platforms, they should be able to move to other options that offer different forms of content moderation, better privacy protections, and other features that improve the experience for everyone, including young people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
KOSA would not enhance the ability of users to choose where they spend their time. Instead, it would shrink the number of options, by making strict requirements that only today\u2019s largest, most profitable platforms could follow. It would solidify today\u2019s Big Tech giants, while forcing them to collect more private data on all users. It would force them to spy on young people, and it would hand government the power to limit what topics they can see and discuss online. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is not a safety bill\u2014it is a surveillance and censorship bill. Please tell your Senators and representatives not to pass it. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What’s interesting is they want to limit what kids are exposed to online, but look at what they expose kids to at school and from our supposedly elected leaders. You have to conclude this would be to limit people exposing children to truth that counteracts what they’re getting from official government sources. I’ll postulate that […]<\/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-4116","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\/4116","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=4116"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4116\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4117,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4116\/revisions\/4117"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}